Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Religions > Bible > Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Richard Dawkins"
Date:	24 Feb 2006 09:55:29 PM
Object:	Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dr. Don Boys
© 2000 Cornerstone Communications
Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga "Free
Press" are not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where
they were during their college days. Neighbor, those days are gone forever.
Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and
inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved
scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the
veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our
position.
In every debate I've had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine
accusation is made, "Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is
religion." Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking
ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from
observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation.
Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and
embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that
often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to
protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any
definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation
are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by
evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory that
only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the
failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove
his position), etc.
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive
of evolution. It is not.
Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said,
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does
not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil
traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J.
Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions
offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors
know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that
Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists
are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found
rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no
transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said,
"...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of
evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my
heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate
fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and
museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion"
because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series
is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on
being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson
admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a
watertight argument." Not one.
Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown
Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape
man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply
a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired "ape man." Need I go
on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact compared to
gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as many
evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.
Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in
France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of
Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a
"pseudo-science."
Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in
Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune
if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this
is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss
evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby
believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He
went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked
the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is
'anti-science.'" And so it is.
Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized
Darwinism as "speculation," based on faith," similar to theories of "little
green men," "dead," "effectively dead," "very flimsy," "incoherent," and a
"myth." Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don't need scientific
creationists to hold their feet to the fire.
World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently died), with
three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an expert by the
United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and
men prints within inches of each other at Glen Rose, Texas, "...all this
makes evolution impossible." And so it does.
I have assumed that the college professors are familiar with all the world
famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really
uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until
they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that
creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a
thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a
stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.
The college professors were correct in stating that Darwin's book does not
deal with the origins of life even though its title was "Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life." So a book about origins does not deal with origins!
Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never
suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life
started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous
generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from?
You think maybe God was involved?
And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers
were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men
than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin and
others preached white superiority - because of their evolutionary bias. The
haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with
Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a
master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by
Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have
resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all,
evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals
rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what's a
few million lives to be concerned about?
I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists
have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the
universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion,
etc.
Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith. Yes,
evolution is a religion as I document in my book, "Evolution: Fact, Fraud or
Faith?" And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools.
At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then
scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do
believe in balance and fairness, don't we? Or do we?
It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund the Scopes
Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can legally be
taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are on the inside, and
demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued against. When I asked the
ACLU to support my bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that
required Indiana schools to teach scientific creation and evolution equally,
they refused to support my bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought
various ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their
own minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith as
they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark basement
looking for a black cat - that isn't there.
Sorry professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce
and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be
kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is
also taught.
Copyright 1997, Don Boys, Ph.D.
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
--
~There are no true atheists in Christian newsgroups.~
~Science is infallible but those hiding behind it are not~
~"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that
it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and
therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark
would be without meaning.~
.

User: "VoiceOfReason"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	25 Feb 2006 09:17:29 AM

Ignorant. Pity.
.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	26 Feb 2006 06:04:09 PM

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

-------

By Dr. Don Boys
=A9 2000 Cornerstone Communications

Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga "Free
Press" are not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where
they were during their college days. Neighbor, those days are gone foreve=

r=2E

Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and
inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.

Note that a lot of what Boys provides are quotes, out of context, and
old. They are not evidence; they are at best what a minority of
scientists think about the evidence (and, in most cases, they are not
even that).

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved
scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in t=

veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our
position.

Is it uninformed fanaticism to suppose that one can reason from
evidence to the sort of causes that produced that evidence? If we
really assumed that we cannot reconstruct past events merely because we
did not directly observe them, there would be no such things as crime
scene investigators, medical examiners, or crash-scene investigators.

In every debate I've had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asin=

ine

accusation is made, "Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is
religion." Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking
ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

I grant that, going by his article, Boys has considerable personal
expertise in arrogance and asininity.

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from
observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation.
Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary =

and

embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that
often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to
protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

The entire point of science is to derive general explanations for
observations and experimental outcomes; if science does not assume that
nature behaves, at unobserved times and places, as it does at observed
times and places, then there is no point to doing science at all. The
medical examiner might as well throw up his hands and declare that he
can't be sure that the human body works, outside of hospitals and
operating rooms, the way it works inside them. The engineer might as
well assume that steel behaves one way in the lab, but might behave a
totally different way when made into a bridge next year.
Science is about making and testing theories, not just cataloging
observations. One can readily test the idea of common descent: it
implies that, e.g. if humans share particular pseudogenes with baboons
and orangutans, we will share them also with African apes. It implies,
as one evolutionist once retorted, that there will be no rabbit fossils
in the preCambrian. It implies that we will actually observe that
survival of variant offspring in the field and lab is not random, but
that some traits are more likely, in a given environment, to be passed
on than others.

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any
definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observati=

are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."

But note that this does not mean that observation has to be direct. No
one has ever directly observed an atom, or an electromagnetic field, or
gravity. No one, for that matter, has directly observed the Roman
empire; we infer it as the most reasonable explanation for the evidence
(including, of course, voluminous eyewitness accounts -- but we know
from personal experience that eyewitnesses can lie, even about being
eyewitnesses, or be mistaken or misinterpreted, or forged by later
writers). If we know only what we can observe directly ... but we
observe nothing directly; follow that path to its end, and all you have
is personal perceptions with no way to prove they aren't hallucinations
or dreams.

Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by
evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory that
only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the
failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove
his position), etc.

I suspect that Boys cannot accurately describe "Haeckel's
recapitulation theory." But then, some historians of science doubt
that anyone ever has; the idea that embryonic stages of an organism
repeat adult stages of ancestral species is nowhere found explicitly in
Haeckel's writings. In any case, it does not follow as a logical
consequence of evolutionary theory, nor from the idea that embryology
of living species must be a modified form of the embryology of their
ancestors.
It is no part of the definition of "vestigial organ" that it have no
function at all; Darwin noted that "An organ serving for two purposes,
may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more
important purpose;, and remain perfectly efficient for the other."
Rather, a "vestigial structure" is one that has lost at least some of
the function that homologs of that organ have in other, similar species
(e.g. the small, rounded molars of vampire bats, which are useless for
grinding food, and exist in species which subsist on a liquid diet).
Vestigial organs were noted by the (creationist) comparative anatomist
Richard Owen, before evolutionary theory was offered to explain their
odd similarity to organs whose functions they lacked.
Boys, as noted below, is mistaken about the fossil record.

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supporti=

of evolution. It is not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said,
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology d=

oes

not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil
traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen =

J=2E

Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions
offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professo=

know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that
Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutioni=

sts

are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)

Note that "species" to a biologist refers to the differences between,
e=2Eg. a horse and a zebra, or a lion and a tiger, or a wolf and a
coyote, or between one sort of fruit fly and another. Evolution of one
species (as defined by biologists) into another has been observed in
the lab, and is generally admitted (as "change within a kind") by most
creationists. It is this undisputed and observed level of evolutionary
change that is so rare in the fossil record; as Stephen J. Gould noted,
transitions between species are rare in the fossil record (although not
so rare as to prevent Gould from describing the transition from one
species of the snail genus _Cerion_ into another), transitions between
higher taxa (genera, families, orders, etc.) are common. Gould's
favorite example of transitional fossils between families and orders
was the whale series, which showed in some detail the transformation of
hoofed terrestrial carnivores into modern whales.
The rarity of interspecies transitions suggests (though it does not
quite prove) that evolution does not occur at a constant very slow
pace, but that species spend much of their time undergoing no
morphological change at all, and then change into new species over the
course of a few hundred or a few thousand years (very fast, in terms of
geological time). This, not the idea that a new species (much less new
"kinds") arise at all once, is behind Gould and Eldredge's idea of
"punctuated equilibria."

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found
rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no
transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said,
"...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

No evidence of *what* "such creatures?" Niles Eldredge has stated that
the horse series is a fine example of a series of transitional fossils
(with transitions between genera, not between species), and that _Homo
erectus_ is likewise an important intermediate fossil in the evidence
for human evolution. He ought to know that his partner Stephen J.
Gould has described at least one case of transitional fossils between
species, so I assume he is saying that some sort of transitional form
inconsistent with evolutionary theory (e.g. between mammals and birds)
has not been found.

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of
evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks =

heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate
fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and
museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion"
because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the ser=

ies

is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on
being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River Ci=

ty.

_Archaeopteryx_ is a bird with the skeleton of a typical maniraptoran
theropod dinosaur, merely with arms lengthened, tail shortened a bit,
and flight feathers. In most aspects of its anatomy, it is much more
like flightless dinosaurs like _Compsognathus_ than like any modern
bird. There are also feathered dinosaur fossils less birdlike than
_Archaeopteryx_ (e.g. _Sinosauropteryx_ and _Microraptor_), and others
that are more birdlike, but still possessing primitive features like
clawed hands (_Confuciusornis_) or teeth (_Ichthyornis_).
The famous horse series is hardly rejected as a "phantom" or
"illusion;" the illusion is the traditional "gallop of progress" with
every fossil on the route between _Hyracotherium_ and _Equus_. Modern
paleontologists (i.e. those working within the last 50 or 60 years) see
horse evolution as a branching tree, with different lineages modified
in different directions in different niches, but still with a set of
clear intermediates between modern horses and an ancestor which was,
indeed, not a horse.

Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patter=

son

admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a
watertight argument." Not one.

Patterson's point, of course, was that one could not make a watertight
argument that any particular fossil was the ancestor of any other
living or fossil species. That is, one cannot tell whether a given
fossil was an evolutionary "grandparent" or rather a "great aunt" and
close relative to the actual ancestor. This is another consequence of
the branching nature of common descent; if lineages did not tend to
split off side branches, one could confidently state that fossil
species were the ancestors of living species.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltd=

own

Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape
man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simp=

a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired "ape man." Need I =

on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact compared to
gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as many
evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

_Homo neanderthalensis_ comprises remains of over 100 different
individuals, of both sexes and all ages from infants to old people, and
in various degrees of health before their deaths. To speak, as Boys
does, of "Neanderthal man" as a single specimen reveals an ignorance of
the fossil record on which he pontificates. Of course, _H.
neanderthalensis_, with its
slightly-larger-than-the-modern-human-average brain, was not an
"ape-man." On the other hand, there are several good fossil specimens,
from HR1470 (_Homo rudolfensis_) to the Dmanisi specimens, which some
creationists describe as fully-formed humans, while others, with equal
assurance, describe as purely ape. One would be hard-pressed to come
up with a better criterion for terming a fossil an "ape-man."

Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in
France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of
Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a
"pseudo-science."

Did Grasse say this about *evolution* (common descent with
modification, the idea that you share great-to-the-millionth
grandparents with a chimpanzee), or about natural selection of
mutations? Note that the French have long resented Darwin, who
eclipsed the fame of their own, earlier, home-grown evolutionist,
Lamarck. As far as I know, Grasse had no quarrel with evolution as
such.

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea =

Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfort=

une

if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But th=

is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss
evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby
believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He
went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked
the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution =

'anti-science.'" And so it is.

Again, does Dr. Lovtrup deny either that humans share ancestors with
monkeys, and mushrooms, or that natural selection plays a major role in
evolution? He may not like certain aspects of modern theories about
how evolution works and what causes it (although why his views should
be given more weight than those of a thousand more eminent biologists
who disagree with him, I cannot say), but I doubt very much that he
disputes evolution as such.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized
Darwinism as "speculation," based on faith," similar to theories of "litt=

green men," "dead," "effectively dead," "very flimsy," "incoherent," and a
"myth." Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don't need scientific
creationists to hold their feet to the fire.

World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently died), w=

ith

three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an expert by the
United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and
men prints within inches of each other at Glen Rose, Texas, "...all this
makes evolution impossible." And so it does.

Wilder-Smith, in a discussion of radiometric dating, confused
radioactive decay rates (which are not observed to vary) with fission
rates of fissile isotopes (which do vary, which is why there is a
difference between nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs). This is the
sort of thing that tends to outweigh the authority he might otherwise
derive from his three earned doctorates. I doubt he ever personally
inspected the "man-tracks" at Glen Rose, which even the Creation
Research Institute today admits are a mix of distorted dinosaur
footprints and fake, carved "human" prints, not human prints.

I have assumed that the college professors are familiar with all the world
famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are real=

uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until
they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.

Perhaps they are more familiar with rather more famous scientists, like
the devout Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, who remarked that "nothing
in biology makes sense except in terms of evolution."

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest th=

creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a
thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a
stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

Which group is that? Most of the groups that "take a stand for
scientific creationism" have "statements of faith" that explicitly
state that no observation whatsoever shall ever be regarded as showing
that creationism is false. If over a thousand scientists have joined
such an organization, all that proves is that over a thousand
scientists have decided that, on the subject of origins, they will not
do science.

The college professors were correct in stating that Darwin's book does not
deal with the origins of life even though its title was "Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life." So a book about origins does not deal with origins!
Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never
suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life
started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontane=

ous

generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from?
You think maybe God was involved?

Theodosius Dobzhansky thought so, but then, he thought God was involved
in everything. Saying that God was involved does not tell us how He
worked, or what mechanisms He used, to create life. Most
evolutionists, if asked, will tell you that they don't know where or
how life started, but that its origin surely did not resemble
"spontaneous generation," the origin of modern, complex, species
directly from nonliving matter. There is, by the way, no particular
reason why a book about the origin of one phenomenon would concern
itself with the origin of another, distinct phenomenon -- why a book
about the origin of species (or the origin of biological adaptions)
will not discuss the origins of those things, not the origin of life.

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers
were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men
than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin and
others preached white superiority - because of their evolutionary bias. T=

haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting wi=

Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a
master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by
Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have
resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all,
evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals
rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what'=

s a

few million lives to be concerned about?

People had been preaching white superiority since at least the 18th
century, and often justifying it on Biblical grounds (the "curse of
Ham," for example). The idea originated from African slavery and the
white European conquest of "colored" peoples on other continents (and
the need to justify such conquests). It is regrettable that Darwin and
Huxley did not reject these ideas more fully than they did (but note
that both were fervent opponents of slavery and supporters of equal
rights for Blacks -- Huxley's most infamous assertion of Black
inferiority was in the context of reassuring whites that racial
equality was no threat to whites' position in society).
"Darwinism," on the one hand, depends on the existence of variation
within all populations; it rejects the idea that there are essential
racial traits that are possessed by all members of one "race" and no
members of another. In this respect, it is antithetical to racism. It
was Darwin's creationist contemporaries who often argued that different
"races" were different species; Darwin, on evolutionary grounds,
rejected this argument and put all humans in the same species.
Note that "Darwinism" deals with change in populations over time, not
with "superiority" or "inferiority," or with "master races." In place
of the "evolutionary ladder" of Lamarck (itself a modification of the
"ladder of creation" of early modern creationist thought), in which
different races and species can be ranked in order of "perfection,"
Darwin offered a view of different groups adapted to different
environments, with no set of traits universally "better" or "fitter"
than others.
The 20th century saw a great deal of bloodshed, because methods of
killing became so much more effective with the improvement of
technology. Earlier generations had to soak the soil of Europe in the
blood of thousands, rather than millions, because of a lack of
competence, not a lack of bloodthirstiness. Holding that man is a
little lower than the angels has rarely stopped people from burning
heretics (and the occasional witch) at the stake, or sending armies
forth to butcher infidels and put entire cities to the sword.

I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists
have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the
universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosio=

etc.

The Cambrian "explosion" took place over millions of years, and
recently, more and more precursors to Cambrian lifeforms (e.g. early
chordates, early wormlike animals, and so forth) are being found in
preCambrian sediments. The Second Law of Thermodynamics no more
prohibits evolution than it prohibits growing tomatoes or building
refrigerators (which step of evolution does it prevent: gene
duplication and modification, reproduction, colonization of new
ecological niches, or what?). The First Law of Thermodynamics is not
even an issue for evolution; new species arise from modifications of
old species, rather than popping in out of thin air.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith. Ye=

evolution is a religion as I document in my book, "Evolution: Fact, Fraud=

Faith?" And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schoo=

ls.

At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then
scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do
believe in balance and fairness, don't we? Or do we?

I assume the author does not believe in "fairness or balance" where the
issue is, e.g. whether the views of Holocaust deniers will be presented
in history class (or, likely, whether the merits of abstinence vs.
condoms are discussed in health class). I hope he does not believe
that all honest, thinking persons hold that we should either give
geocentrists equal time in astronomy class, or omit all references to
"Copernicanism" (although there are creationists, like Gerardus Bouw,
who believe just that).
Evolution is an inference from the evidence of the consistent nested
hierarchy of life, from genetic and morphological homologies and
vestigial structures in humans and other species, from biogeography,
and, yes, from the fossil record. It is no more a "guess" or a "faith"
than are atoms or magnetic fields. That the author has remained
ignorant of the evidence does not make the evidence nonexistent; that
the author wishes to embrace epistomological nihilism in defense of his
faith does not make that a sensible basis for biological science.

It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund the Sco=

pes

Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can legally be
taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are on the inside, =

and

demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued against. When I asked t=

ACLU to support my bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that
required Indiana schools to teach scientific creation and evolution equal=

ly,

they refused to support my bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought
various ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their
own minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith =

they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark basem=

ent

looking for a black cat - that isn't there.

The ACLU never complained that only one theory of origins could be
taught in Tennessee (that was an editorial in the _Chicago Tribune_, I
think). Their complaint was not monopoly, but the idea that the
government had a right to censor science in the name of popular
religion. Note, by the way, that creation is not a "theory." It
offers no explanation for why the facts of biology are one way rather
than some other way, and no testable predictions.
Again, if Boys had offered a bill demanding that heliocentrism and
geocentrism be taught on an equal footing in astronomy class, or that
phlogiston theory be taught on a par with other theories in chemistry
class, would he pretend that opposition to these ideas was merely
defense of an insecure "faith," or insist that students be presented
with "both sides" (i.e. the true side and the false side) so they could
"make up their own minds?" Lying to students is not an aid to helping
them decide what to accept.

Sorry professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce
and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be
kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is
also taught.

Charles Darwin (who is often faulted by creationists for lacing _Origin
of Species_ with phrases like "it may therefore be supposed" and
"probably ...") once noted that "ignorance more frequently begets
confidence than does knowledge." This essay you have posted is living,
or at least written, evidence for that hypothesis.

Copyright 1997, Don Boys, Ph.D.

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
--
~There are no true atheists in Christian newsgroups.~
~Science is infallible but those hiding behind it are not~

One more time: science is an activity of fallible human beings, and is
hardly infallible. It is, however, rather more likely to uncover and
correct error than is dogma, or the supposition that one's
interpretations of one's sacred texts, are inerrant.

~"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out th=

it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and
therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark
would be without meaning.~

User: ""
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 11:14:22 AM

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Right, the religion of Evolution is fake, and also that religion of
Mathematics. Yes, I admit that to the worldly person, Pythagoras'
theorem appears to be proven. His mistake was that he did not look at
all four sides of the triangle. We can see that Pythagoras' triangle
was not fair and square, (nor fair and balanced) but is the results of
the same devilish "logic" that spawned the doctrine of Evolution.
<snip lots and lots and a lot more>
.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 01:23:14 PM

wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Right, the religion of Evolution is fake,...

In searching the Internet for an authoritative reference to the
'religion of evolution" I found nothing but a web page at Answers in
Genesis, an authoritative site for young earth creationist christians,
but hardly a universal reference.
Even that link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp used the
phrase as a title only with no reference to the beliefs, rituals,
mythology or proponents of this "religion of evolution".
I am persuaded, therefore, to think you are casting aspersions not
citing fact, which if fine, but it would be clearer if you told us you
were doing so.
I also checked religious tolerance at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ and the Pluralism Project at
http://www.pluralism.org/ and found nothing about a religion called
evolution. Help!

...and also that religion of
Mathematics. Yes, I admit that to the worldly person, Pythagoras'
theorem appears to be proven. His mistake was that he did not look at
all four sides of the triangle. We can see that Pythagoras' triangle
was not fair and square, (nor fair and balanced) but is the results of
the same devilish "logic" that spawned the doctrine of Evolution.

Now this is good. I always knew there was another side to the triangle
and my math teachers kept marking me down for this view. Any chance I
can get you to regrade my trig tests.
All the best, Gordon Hill
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 03:10:51 PM

explainer wrote:

gpatton@bayou.com wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Right, the religion of Evolution is fake,...

In searching the Internet for an authoritative reference to the
'religion of evolution" I found nothing but a web page at Answers in
Genesis, an authoritative site for young earth creationist christians,
but hardly a universal reference.

Even that link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp used the
phrase as a title only with no reference to the beliefs, rituals,
mythology or proponents of this "religion of evolution".

I am persuaded, therefore, to think you are casting aspersions not
citing fact, which if fine, but it would be clearer if you told us you
were doing so.

I also checked religious tolerance at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ and the Pluralism Project at
http://www.pluralism.org/ and found nothing about a religion called
evolution. Help!

Now this is good. I always knew there was another side to the triangle

===>Just like there is yet another god to the Trinity? ;-) -- L.

and my math teachers kept marking me down for this view. Any chance I
can get you to regrade my trig tests.

All the best, Gordon Hill

User: "VoiceOfReason"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 04:19:54 PM

Libertarius wrote:

explainer wrote:

gpatton@bayou.com wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Right, the religion of Evolution is fake,...

In searching the Internet for an authoritative reference to the
'religion of evolution" I found nothing but a web page at Answers in
Genesis, an authoritative site for young earth creationist christians,
but hardly a universal reference.

Even that link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp used the
phrase as a title only with no reference to the beliefs, rituals,
mythology or proponents of this "religion of evolution".

I am persuaded, therefore, to think you are casting aspersions not
citing fact, which if fine, but it would be clearer if you told us you
were doing so.

I also checked religious tolerance at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ and the Pluralism Project at
http://www.pluralism.org/ and found nothing about a religion called
evolution. Help!

Now this is good. I always knew there was another side to the triangle

===>Just like there is yet another god to the Trinity? ;-) -- L.

Father, son, holy spirit.......... and Ralph?
.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 05:09:47 PM

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Libertarius wrote:

explainer wrote:

gpatton@bayou.com wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Right, the religion of Evolution is fake,...

In searching the Internet for an authoritative reference to the
'religion of evolution" I found nothing but a web page at Answers in
Genesis, an authoritative site for young earth creationist christians,
but hardly a universal reference.

Even that link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp used the
phrase as a title only with no reference to the beliefs, rituals,
mythology or proponents of this "religion of evolution".

I am persuaded, therefore, to think you are casting aspersions not
citing fact, which if fine, but it would be clearer if you told us you
were doing so.

I also checked religious tolerance at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ and the Pluralism Project at
http://www.pluralism.org/ and found nothing about a religion called
evolution. Help!

Now this is good. I always knew there was another side to the triangle

===>Just like there is yet another god to the Trinity? ;-) -- L.

Father, son, holy spirit.......... and Ralph?

Drat! Why didn't I read your post before I pulsed L. :-{
.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 05:08:33 PM

Libertarius wrote:

explainer wrote:

gpatton@bayou.com wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Right, the religion of Evolution is fake,...

In searching the Internet for an authoritative reference to the
'religion of evolution" I found nothing but a web page at Answers in
Genesis, an authoritative site for young earth creationist christians,
but hardly a universal reference.

Even that link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp used the
phrase as a title only with no reference to the beliefs, rituals,
mythology or proponents of this "religion of evolution".

I am persuaded, therefore, to think you are casting aspersions not
citing fact, which if fine, but it would be clearer if you told us you
were doing so.

I also checked religious tolerance at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ and the Pluralism Project at
http://www.pluralism.org/ and found nothing about a religion called
evolution. Help!

Now this is good. I always knew there was another side to the triangle

===>Just like there is yet another god to the Trinity? ;-) -- L.

I'm hooked. Would you care to label it?
GH

and my math teachers kept marking me down for this view. Any chance I
can get you to regrade my trig tests.

All the best, Gordon Hill

User: ""
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	28 Feb 2006 12:17:51 PM

explainer wrote:

gpatton@bayou.com wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Right, the religion of Evolution is fake,...

In searching the Internet for an authoritative reference to the
'religion of evolution" I found nothing but a web page at Answers in
Genesis, an authoritative site for young earth creationist christians,
but hardly a universal reference.

Even that link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp used the
phrase as a title only with no reference to the beliefs, rituals,
mythology or proponents of this "religion of evolution".

I am persuaded, therefore, to think you are casting aspersions not
citing fact, which if fine, but it would be clearer if you told us you
were doing so.

Evolution (as taught in Biology) is not a religion. It is a very
important part of the study of llife here on earth.
The "religion of evolution" is a straw man set up by some stupid
people, and that straw man is a fake.

I also checked religious tolerance at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ and the Pluralism Project at
http://www.pluralism.org/ and found nothing about a religion called
evolution. Help!

The "religion called evolution" exist only in the minds and propaganda
of idiots. It is nothing like the theory of evolution taught in
Biology.

Now this is good. I always knew there was another side to the triangle
and my math teachers kept marking me down for this view. Any chance I
can get you to regrade my trig tests.

Yes. This is a 50 cent value for only 29 cents and if you order your
regrade in the next twenty minutes we will give you the whole thing and
add an extra 7 points! Call Now! ;-)
Old George down on the slow, winding and muddy Bayou Bartholomew
.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	28 Feb 2006 02:10:16 PM

wrote:

explainer wrote:

wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Right, the religion of Evolution is fake,...

In searching the Internet for an authoritative reference to the
'religion of evolution" I found nothing but a web page at Answers in
Genesis, an authoritative site for young earth creationist christians,
but hardly a universal reference.

Even that link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp used the
phrase as a title only with no reference to the beliefs, rituals,
mythology or proponents of this "religion of evolution".

I am persuaded, therefore, to think you are casting aspersions not
citing fact, which if fine, but it would be clearer if you told us you
were doing so.

Evolution (as taught in Biology) is not a religion. It is a very
important part of the study of llife here on earth.

The "religion of evolution" is a straw man set up by some stupid
people, and that straw man is a fake.

What I wish I had said, but didn't have the words. Thanks.

I also checked religious tolerance at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ and the Pluralism Project at
http://www.pluralism.org/ and found nothing about a religion called
evolution. Help!

The "religion called evolution" exist only in the minds and propaganda
of idiots. It is nothing like the theory of evolution taught in
Biology.

Now this is good. I always knew there was another side to the triangle
and my math teachers kept marking me down for this view. Any chance I
can get you to regrade my trig tests.

Yes. This is a 50 cent value for only 29 cents and if you order your
regrade in the next twenty minutes we will give you the whole thing and
add an extra 7 points! Call Now! ;-)

Let's see now "the square root of some of the squares is equal to the
cube root if the exponentiation of the trools.?
Is that the axiom?
GH
.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	25 Feb 2006 08:44:44 PM

Richard,
1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.
At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.
All the best, Gordon Hill
.

User: "Richard Dawkins"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	25 Feb 2006 10:35:06 PM

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone within
shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.
All my best,
Richard D.
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	26 Feb 2006 09:19:46 AM

"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
news:%daMf.79$HY3.10845@news.uswest.net:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Whyever would YOU object to someone posting something stupid?
By the way, is the devil giving any of the things he promised you for
your soul?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	10 Jul 2006 04:00:59 PM

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns97764A8E2DDF5doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
news:%daMf.79$HY3.10845@news.uswest.net:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.
At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.
All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Whyever would YOU object to someone posting something stupid?
By the way, is the devil giving any of the things he promised you for
your soul?

Besides, in most of the newsgroups this is posted to they post as concerning
writtings which are close to 2000 years old, and much which is far older
than even that ! :-)
BTW friend, keep up the good fight !

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Glenn (Christian Mystic)
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	26 Feb 2006 11:16:04 AM

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:19:46 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
<Xns97764A8E2DDF5doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159>:

"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
news:%daMf.79$HY3.10845@news.uswest.net:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Whyever would YOU object to someone posting something stupid?

By the way, is the devil giving any of the things he promised you for
your soul?

Sure. He gave Fake Richard the delusion that he knows what he is talking
about.
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	12 Apr 2006 06:13:14 PM

Maybe we should quit posting scriptures ? I mean they are *much older* !
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:%daMf.79$HY3.10845@news.uswest.net...

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

All my best,
Richard D.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	26 Feb 2006 10:48:29 AM

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.
GH

All my best,
Richard D.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	26 Feb 2006 12:36:22 PM

On 26 Feb 2006 08:48:29 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.

You can play by discounting all evidence prior to 1997
from both sides. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
The Last Days were in the first century:
"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16
.

User: "Richard Dawkins"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	26 Feb 2006 01:32:00 PM

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7t3025jhuanf637nvt70ep72n2i9tl6ms@4ax.com...

On 26 Feb 2006 08:48:29 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within
shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.

You can play by discounting all evidence prior to 1997
from both sides. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16

Thanks Dave.
.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	26 Feb 2006 02:44:38 PM

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7t3025jhuanf637nvt70ep72n2i9tl6ms@4ax.com...

On 26 Feb 2006 08:48:29 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within
shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.

You can play by discounting all evidence prior to 1997
from both sides. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16

Thanks Dave.

Sorry, no evidence is discounted in science, only unsupported opinions.
GH
.

User: "Richard Dawkins"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	26 Feb 2006 04:38:34 PM

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140986678.426229.6380@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7t3025jhuanf637nvt70ep72n2i9tl6ms@4ax.com...

On 26 Feb 2006 08:48:29 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within
shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.

You can play by discounting all evidence prior to 1997
from both sides. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16

Thanks Dave.

Sorry, no evidence is discounted in science, only unsupported opinions.

GH

And evolution
.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 07:36:13 AM

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140986678.426229.6380@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7t3025jhuanf637nvt70ep72n2i9tl6ms@4ax.com...

On 26 Feb 2006 08:48:29 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within
shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.

You can play by discounting all evidence prior to 1997
from both sides. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16

Thanks Dave.

Sorry, no evidence is discounted in science, only unsupported opinions.

GH

And evolution

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which can be
"challenged", as I understand it, by conducting experiments to falsify
it and succeeding or conducting experiments which support it and
fail--as are all scientific theories.
So far the ToE has not been falsified by observation; therefore, it
continues to be a valid scientific theory. I see it not as the "truth
proven", rather the "truth alleged and not fallsified through thousands
of observations". As with all scientific theories it is seen as a
truth without certainty.
GH
.

User: "Richard Dawkins"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 09:48:45 PM

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1141047373.604038.16480@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140986678.426229.6380@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7t3025jhuanf637nvt70ep72n2i9tl6ms@4ax.com...

On 26 Feb 2006 08:48:29 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others
are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe
someone
within
shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.

You can play by discounting all evidence prior to 1997
from both sides. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16

Thanks Dave.

Sorry, no evidence is discounted in science, only unsupported opinions.

GH

And evolution

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which can be
"challenged", as I understand it, by conducting experiments to falsify
it and succeeding or conducting experiments which support it and
fail--as are all scientific theories.

So far the ToE has not been falsified by observation; therefore, it
continues to be a valid scientific theory. I see it not as the "truth
proven", rather the "truth alleged and not fallsified through thousands
of observations". As with all scientific theories it is seen as a
truth without certainty.

GH

You must have read my "Word Games" posting. In any event, thanks for being
the first evolutionist to answer me with a level of rationality that rises
above the common evolutionist. Nevertheless, you continue to avoid the
issue of how life could evolve from non-life. Clearly your beliefs are
based on your faith in the proclamations of the evolutionist clergy
concerning dating. I read your words several times, and fancy posturing
aside, they're nothing more than your declaration of faith. You say "We
know".
For the sake of argument, let's say the assigned dates (i.e. the dates
declared "to be" by those of the evolutionist faith), let's say those dates
are correct. Furthermore, lacking any real evidence, let's say they're also
correct about a sequence of time in which the Earth lacked life followed by
a time in which "life appeared."
.

User: "explainer"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	28 Feb 2006 08:09:13 AM

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1141047373.604038.16480@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140986678.426229.6380@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7t3025jhuanf637nvt70ep72n2i9tl6ms@4ax.com...

On 26 Feb 2006 08:48:29 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others
are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe
someone
within
shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.

You can play by discounting all evidence prior to 1997
from both sides. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16

Thanks Dave.

Sorry, no evidence is discounted in science, only unsupported opinions.

GH

And evolution

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which can be
"challenged", as I understand it, by conducting experiments to falsify
it and succeeding or conducting experiments which support it and
fail--as are all scientific theories.

So far the ToE has not been falsified by observation; therefore, it
continues to be a valid scientific theory. I see it not as the "truth
proven", rather the "truth alleged and not fallsified through thousands
of observations". As with all scientific theories it is seen as a
truth without certainty.

GH

You must have read my "Word Games" posting. In any event, thanks for being
the first evolutionist to answer me with a level of rationality that rises
above the common evolutionist. Nevertheless, you continue to avoid the
issue of how life could evolve from non-life. Clearly your beliefs are
based on your faith in the proclamations of the evolutionist clergy
concerning dating. I read your words several times, and fancy posturing
aside, they're nothing more than your declaration of faith. You say "We
know".

For the sake of argument, let's say the assigned dates (i.e. the dates
declared "to be" by those of the evolutionist faith), let's say those dates
are correct. Furthermore, lacking any real evidence, let's say they're also
correct about a sequence of time in which the Earth lacked life followed by
a time in which "life appeared."

The question of how "life appeared" is of no interest to me. Even if
science were to create a process in the lab that caused a life form to
come into being out of non life, no one could say it happened that way.
By the same token, the big bang theory does not say whether there was
a supernatural causation of it, only that it happened.
When I say "I know" I usually mean "I hold within my closet of
cognition". I know:
-my Mom loved me.
-how computer networks operate.
-my way to my coffee place.
-there is a supernatural causation of the universe I call Creator.
-more than I can say and the more I say the more I know.
....and all of what I know is true. Some of it is true universally,
some is true for a group and some is true to me alone. It's the proper
identification of which truth is which that is my challenge. The
theory of evolution is true for me and many others. Anyone who wants
to test that truth must show me evidence that falsifies it, not an
opposing belief. Facts must be refuted by facts. Beliefs are
irrefutable.
All the best, Gordon Hill
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!	27 Feb 2006 05:10:22 AM

On 26 Feb 2006 12:44:38 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7t3025jhuanf637nvt70ep72n2i9tl6ms@4ax.com...

On 26 Feb 2006 08:48:29 -0800, "explainer"
<gordon@explainer.com> spake thusly:

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"explainer" <gordon@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1140921884.462668.326680@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Richard,

1997? If you have quit writing and begun posting what others are
saying, please find something more current.

At least Jason Spaceman points us to contemporary material.

All the best, Gordon Hill

WOW!
And an ancient article at 8 years old!
Who would have thought :-)
Now if you would just quit posting stupid reply's then maybe someone
within
shouting distance would listen, though I rather doubt it.

Okay, I'll play, but since the original post has been snipped I must
return to the beginning.

You can play by discounting all evidence prior to 1997
from both sides. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

"A LITTLE WHILE, and ye shall not see me:
and again, A LITTLE WHILE and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16

Thanks Dave.

Sorry, no evidence is discounted in science, only unsupported opinions.

GH

Okay, so you are a hypocrite. And a moron to boot.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
I know God won't give me anything I can't handle.
I just wish He didn't trust me so much.
.

User: "Tom"