- ... calling ... BIG ... I m so sorry we don t live up to you exacting standards. However, there are other creation-evolution lists and I am sure one of themMessage 1 of 131 , Nov 1, 2004View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jim Koenig"
> I had intended on monitoring this discussion group, but after
> reading several of the recent postings, I decided that name
> and insults do not suit me. The immaturity of the postings is aBIG
> turn-off.I'm so sorry we don't live up to you exacting standards. However,
there are other creation-evolution lists and I am sure one of them
can be all you want it to be.
- ... From: tinroad66 To: email@example.com Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 6:22 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Insults ...Message 131 of 131 , Dec 14, 2004View Source----- Original Message -----From: tinroad66Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 6:22 AMSubject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Insults
> Leon: That's not so. Lenny banned me from his list when I
dared to attack the religious roots of creationism, AND his OWN
religiosity. And, AFTER banning me, he continued to attack what he
had the gall to call called MY "religious" position, all the while
refusing to fairly post my counters!> Neil: Hmm...
> Is there any chance that there are 2 sides to this story?
> Leon: Of course.
Tin: I believe that Lenny's position is that religion is off topic.
Promoting or bashing religion is taboo.Leon: Then, in-so-far as "Creationism" is obviously "religious," i.e., a "religious" belief, Lenny is just as obviously as wrong as wrong can be. Why should the religious roots of creationism be sacrosanct from being attacked with scientific criticisms? Creationists certainly feel no restraints in deeply deceiving themselves that science SUPPORTS their religious beliefs! Hence the idiotic oxymoron, "scientific creationism."