Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Welcome to "creationism" at ONElist!

Expand Messages
  • Tim
    ... Just a few comments on this. I don t think this is a prejudicial comment, at least no more than calling someone from the KKK a racist based on the fact
    Message 1 of 17 , Oct 4, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      > Of course, this works both ways. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy
      > who also advocate some particular empirical claim in criticism of, say,
      > biological evolution, should not be criticized on the basis of "Well,
      > you're just an advocate of biblical inerrancy, so, right off the bat,
      > your argument is...." This is just another prejudicial comment, and is
      > irrelevant to the genuine details of the topic.

      Just a few comments on this.

      I don't think this is a prejudicial comment, at least no more than calling
      someone from the KKK a racist based on the fact that they're from the KKK.
      If someone believes in biblical inerrancy they are not likely to be swayed
      by any argument and are likely to reject evolution (not to mention
      chemistry, astronomy, physics etc. depending on far they go) based on the
      fact that it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible rather than any
      scientific evidence against it. This is true with YEC's anyway.

      Take comments like these for example:

      "The instructed Christian knows that the evidences for full divine
      inspiration of Scripture are far weightier than the evidences for any fact
      of science. When confronted with the consistent Biblical testimony to a
      universal Flood, the believer must certainly accept is as unquestioningly
      true." -- John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 118)

      "The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is the fact that the
      Bible denies it. The Bible is the Word of God, absolutely inerrant and
      verbally inspired." --Henry Morris (Morris, 1967, p. 55)

      "...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of
      history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that
      God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined,
      can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary
      inferences of Scripture."
      Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science

      "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and
      perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the
      same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility
      that the "facts" of science can contradict the Bible."
      Henry Morris in the first paragraph of Scientists Confront Creationism

      "We believe that the Bible, as the verbally inspired and completely inerrant
      Word of God, gives us the true framework of historical and scientific
      interpretation . . . We take this revealed framework of history as our basic
      dictum, and then try to see how all the pertinent data can be understood in
      this context." --John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961,
      p. xxvi)

      "Even though we emphasize the scientific aspects of creationism-- especially
      in our debates and campus seminars--we also stress the fact that all true
      science supports Biblical creationism as well . . . We believe that God's
      inerrant word must always prevail over the historical speculations of what
      the Bible calls 'science falsely so called'." --Henry Morris (Morris, Back
      to Genesis, October 1995)

      "The false presuppositions and implications of organic evolution and
      geologic uniformitarianism need to be challenged in the name of Holy
      Scripture." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 45)

      Not science, not logic, not evidence but "Holy Scripture"

      Are these comments not clearly prejudical? Would one be out of line for
      calling them (or similar comments) prejudical? Then of course they're the
      "statement of faith" that creationists have to sign which basically says
      "the Bible is absolutely true regardless of any evidence whatsoever"

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html
      "Statement of Belief:

      1.The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired
      throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in
      the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the
      account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical
      truths.

      2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct
      creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever
      biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished
      only changes within the original created kinds.

      3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the
      Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

      4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept
      Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of
      Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is
      the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind.
      Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our
      Savior. "

      If this isn't predudical then what is? Scientists are not required to sign a
      statement of belief saying that "there is not God" or "evolution must be
      true"

      Anyway, that's my 2cents.
      If anyone wants to discuss evolution/creationism in a different (and IMHO
      better) format then visit the Sympatico forums.
      http://forums.sympatico.ca/WebX/WebX.cgi?13@...1za4Kophz^1@.ef3c254/3064
    • Todd S. Greene
      Welcome to the ONElist creationism email discussion forum! You are getting this via the list, because you are a charter member. This list was just set up
      Message 2 of 17 , Oct 4, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Welcome to the ONElist "creationism" email discussion forum!

        You are getting this via the list, because you are a "charter member."
        This list was just set up this weekend, and this is actually the first
        message.

        Technically, this is an "unmoderated" list, meaning you can post to the
        "creationism@onelist.com" at will. There is no one who "approves" posts
        before they go out to list members.

        However, a few of the manual administration tasks are maintained by the
        "list moderator" (that's me). If you have participated in discussion
        forums like this before, you know that the moderator can draw up sets of
        "rules of membership" or "rules of discussion" which she or he wants you
        to follow as a participant in the forum. If you break the rules, the
        moderator may (or may not) give you a warning, then after that just
        "ban" you from the list.

        The implementation of such rules on some lists seems quirky, based on, I
        suppose, the quirkiness and/or agenda of the list moderator(s). From
        May, 1999 through September, 1999, I participated in three different
        discussion forums. In one, one of the moderators closed down the
        discussion, despite the fact that a number of the members in that forum
        (other than myself) were discussing the topic and were asking me
        specific questions that they wanted me to answer. (I was the only
        advocate of the idea of an ancient universe in that forum.) In a second
        forum, after only about a week or so, the moderator "zapped" the entire
        discussion thread (we were discussing the alleged "comet mystery"),
        citing incivility in the discussion. In a third forum, my posts were
        banned simply because I happened to *mention* the name of Hugh Ross
        while I was discussing the fact that there was a clear distinction
        between accepting the idea of an ancient universe and accepting
        biological evolution (which the list moderator, as a discussion
        participant, had disputed). That moderator had several weeks previously
        "closed" discussion on whether Hugh Ross was an old earth creationist or
        a theistic evolutionist. So by even mentioning Ross' name while
        discussing something else, I had transgressed the moderator's bidding,
        as he let me know.

        Personally, I find this kind of behavior inappropriate. I know, though,
        that those are their lists, and thus they can run them however they
        wish. But it seems to me that a person can act in the role of list
        moderator, and also participate in discussions, and keep these roles
        separate. Thus, *I* have established this list, and I can "run it" (or
        not) how *I* wish.

        Therefore, the purpose of this discussion forum is to discuss topics
        relevant to creationism, and the discussion will be moderated ONLY for
        "minimal netiquette" and NOT for "content." Thus, this forum will
        maintain a policy of "open discussion." Neither the topics for
        discussion, nor the ways in which an argument is advanced, will be
        controlled in any way by the moderator.

        So the rules for this list are pretty minimal:

        (1) No profanity.
        (2) Don't use prejudicial labels - deal with the relevant details.
        (3) List policies:
        a. "Three strikes and you're out!"
        b. Be relevant to creationism.

        Further explanation:

        (1) No profanity.

        You know what the words are. You can say, "Your claim is very irritating
        to me, and here's why..." or "Your comments are just prejudicial and
        personally directed and thus irrelevant to the details of the issue we
        are talking about, and it makes me angry that you constantly use
        prejudicial rhetoric instead of addressing the relevant details. Here is
        why I think your comments can legitimately be described as simply
        'prejudicial'...." But on this list, please don't say, "That really
        pi***s me off!" You can say, the same thing (while explaining why), but
        you don't have to use "profane" words to do it. I have to say I'm going
        to be a "stickler" on this one. "Darn it!" and "Golly!" is the highest
        level of profanity allowed on this list. All right?

        (2) Please, please, please avoid the prejudicial labels, and deal with
        the relevant details.

        If you really, genuinely believe that anyone who disagrees with young
        earth creationism is "just an atheist" or is, at the least, "an ally of
        atheists," then you really need to explain the specific reasons for why
        you think this. I know of several writers, and I know some people
        personally, who: are not atheists; despise atheism; believe the Bible is
        God's Word; advocate biblical inerrancy; AND accept the idea that the
        universe is ancient. (Some also accept the idea of biological
        evolution.)

        (The other point to consider is that just because an atheist argues in
        support of a particular idea, this does not necessarily imply anything
        with respect to the validity of the idea. I had some math professors in
        college who were atheists. But, believe me, if I had tried to do
        mathematical proofs based, in part, on whether or not my professor was
        an atheist, I would have flunked. You have to consider the logic and the
        empirical information that is relevant to the topic. Whether or not a
        proponent is an atheist is, really, irrelevant.)

        Of course, this works both ways. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy
        who also advocate some particular empirical claim in criticism of, say,
        biological evolution, should not be criticized on the basis of "Well,
        you're just an advocate of biblical inerrancy, so, right off the bat,
        your argument is...." This is just another prejudicial comment, and is
        irrelevant to the genuine details of the topic.

        Along with my pointing this out, I will also say this: The kind of snide
        remarks that sometimes get made about a person's grammar or spelling
        also fall into this category of being irrelevant to the details of an
        issue (unless it is the grammar itself that makes what is stated unclear
        and you are asking for clarification). We don't need snide remarks.

        Also, along with this: Please keep in mind that there really is "life
        outside of cyberspace" (yes, I know, some of you may find this hard to
        believe!), so please do not make snide remarks about someone's not
        "answering your argument" simply because she or he has made no posts to
        the list for a few or several days. Okay? (Of course, if she or he is
        making posts and still ignoring your comments, then maybe you have a
        legitimate point to make!)

        (3) Acting in the role of list moderator, I would like to have no policy
        at all. I don't think that will work well in practice. So here is a
        little bit of policy for this discussion forum:

        a. "Three strikes and you're out!"

        Regarding rules 1 and 2 above, there will be a standing "three
        strikes and you're out!" rule. As list moderator, I will warn you
        twice, then I will ban you from the list. I will send such warnings
        privately, to your email address. I will try to be a fair in my
        judgements as list moderator. And since I really don't have much in
        the way of "rules" anyway, please respect the few that there are.

        b. Be relevant to creationism.

        Unlike the moderators of those other discussion forums I mentioned, I
        will not dictate much at all with regard to what you should or should
        not be discussing. There is no "orthodoxy" here. I will NOT - as list
        moderator - tell you what you should or should not be saying in your
        advocating of your own arguments. (Though as a participant in the
        discussion I might have a lot to say about it! <grin>) I ask only
        that it be relevant to the general subject of creationism. And I know
        that this actually covers a very wide and interesting range of
        topics. At first, I thought about excluding discussion that was
        specifically focused on theism/atheism, but then I realized that from
        the evangelical Christian perspective this can become quite relevant
        under the rubric of "apologetics," which many consider creationism to
        be a critical component of.


        Finally, I would love to have a Rule #4: NO MISREPRESENTATION, but I
        have no idea how to implement it in a neutral fashion, especially since
        I can't read anyone's mind (as much as I think I can often reasonably
        determine someone's attitude from what they write and how they write
        it). Personally, I hate misrepresentation. I absolutely can't stand it!
        As much as I agree or disagree with a person's overall perspective, that
        person will "get on my bad side" very quickly if they engage in
        misrepresentation (and adamantly refuse to acknowledge correction on it
        when they are corrected). So I have to acknowledge that *as list
        moderator* I will have to put up with misrepresentation, but *as
        discussion participant* I will be free to "call people on the carpet"
        for engaging in misrepresentation (though I won't be using profanity or
        prejudicial labelling to do it, and I will back up my claims with
        specific reasons). Since I believe "creationism@onelist.com" should be
        an "open discussion" forum (unlike my experience in those other three
        forums), I will rely on the "creationism@onelist.com community" to
        dynamically "work things out" with each other on this one. I'm open to
        suggestions. We shall see how things develop.

        This forum is brand new, and I am new at acting as a list moderator
        (though I have been a "discussion participant" on the subject of
        creationism for many years!). So we shall see how things work out on
        this list, and things will evolve (no pun intended). I am certainly open
        to ideas and suggestions with regard to list administration and
        functioning in my role as list moderator.

        If and when I post something in my role as list moderator, such posts
        will be clearly labelled as such. Otherwise, I'm simply participating in
        the discussion just as you are. So when I'm discussing issues, feel free
        to criticize my arguments just as you would anyone else's. I want this
        to be explicitly clear to you, because I did not think I was treated
        "neutrally" like this by the moderators of those other discussion forums
        (perhaps because they didn't have a policy of "open discussion"), and I
        want you to know that things are different here.

        So, now, let me get out of the way and let you go to it! Thank you for
        joining the "creationism@onelist.com" discussion forum. "Lurk" a while,
        if you wish, then jump in and participate. I'll "see you around."

        Sincerely,
        Todd S. Greene
        ONElist "creationism" moderator
        <creationism-owner@onelist.com>
      • AutismUK@xxx.xxx
        In a message dated 05/10/99 01:12:13 GMT Daylight Time, gamble@attcanada.net writes: Tim: I don t think this is a prejudicial comment, at least no more than
        Message 3 of 17 , Oct 5, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 05/10/99 01:12:13 GMT Daylight Time, gamble@...
          writes:

          Tim:
          I don't think this is a prejudicial comment, at least no more than calling
          someone from the KKK a racist based on the fact that they're from the KKK.
          If someone believes in biblical inerrancy they are not likely to be swayed
          by any argument and are likely to reject evolution (not to mention
          chemistry, astronomy, physics etc. depending on far they go) based on the
          fact that it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible rather than any
          scientific evidence against it. This is true with YEC's anyway.

          Paul Robson:
          Yes and no. Any believer in Biblical Inerrancy has to reject one of two
          things : a
          literal reading of Genesis, or evolution.

          There probably are inerrantists who view evolution as true and Genesis as
          allegory ; there are parts of the Bible which are viewed by inerrantists as
          allegory.

          However, if you think that they won't listen to any argument, there isn't much
          point being here. My experience is that some of them will. This may involve
          their "reinterpreting" some parts of the Bible (but what's new :))

          Of course, you will get the poster who posts "Your 10 favourite Evilutionist
          "quotes"" then ignores any rebuttals/counter arguments or responds to them
          with a blast of hell threats, but I don't think all YECs are like this. There
          are
          people who have "converted" both ways (though I suspect most of the
          "I was once a committed evolutionist" stories are just that, as a committed
          evolutionist wouldn't use language like "committed evolutionist" and would
          know what evolution actually is, which in my experience many YECs
          don't).

          Fights aren't necessary. I also subscribe to alt.bible.errancy, which
          compares well to the dogfights of alt.atheism which often is just "you're dumb
          for believing that religious crap" "you're going to hell and you deserve it"
          exchanges.

          Even the most obvious generalisations have odd exceptions. For example,
          we have in England the "National Front", a racist (pro white) political
          organisations. One of their recent council candidates was of asian origin.

          Paul Robson (autismuk@...)
        • Tim
          ... From: To: Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 6:32 AM Subject: Re: [creationism] Welcome to creationism at
          Message 4 of 17 , Oct 5, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <AutismUK@...>
            To: <creationism@onelist.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 6:32 AM
            Subject: Re: [creationism] Welcome to "creationism" at ONElist!


            > From: AutismUK@...
            >
            > In a message dated 05/10/99 01:12:13 GMT Daylight Time,
            gamble@...
            > writes:
            >
            > Tim:
            > I don't think this is a prejudicial comment, at least no more than
            calling
            > someone from the KKK a racist based on the fact that they're from the
            KKK.
            > If someone believes in biblical inerrancy they are not likely to be
            swayed
            > by any argument and are likely to reject evolution (not to mention
            > chemistry, astronomy, physics etc. depending on far they go) based on the
            > fact that it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible rather than
            any
            > scientific evidence against it. This is true with YEC's anyway.
            >
            > Paul Robson:
            > Yes and no. Any believer in Biblical Inerrancy has to reject one of two
            > things : a
            > literal reading of Genesis, or evolution.

            Evolution and physics and archeology and chemistry. etc. at least to some
            extent. The methods for determining the age of fossils, ancient
            civilizations older than 10000 years old etc.

            > There probably are inerrantists who view evolution as true and Genesis as
            > allegory ; there are parts of the Bible which are viewed by inerrantists
            as
            > allegory.

            True. Lots of science mistakes in the Bible which are ignored.

            > However, if you think that they won't listen to any argument, there isn't
            much
            > point being here. My experience is that some of them will. This may
            involve
            > their "reinterpreting" some parts of the Bible (but what's new :))

            True enough. But I'm here anyway. One of these days I'll figure out the
            reason! :=)

            > Of course, you will get the poster who posts "Your 10 favourite
            Evilutionist
            > "quotes"" then ignores any rebuttals/counter arguments or responds to them
            > with a blast of hell threats, but I don't think all YECs are like this.
            There
            > are people who have "converted" both ways (though I suspect most of the
            > "I was once a committed evolutionist" stories are just that, as a
            committed
            > evolutionist wouldn't use language like "committed evolutionist" and would
            > know what evolution actually is, which in my experience many YECs
            > don't).

            Exactly. most of them are just people who heard of it, assumed it was true
            and were swayed by the creationist nonsense. Nobody who understood evolution
            and science would be swayed by creationists claims.

            > Even the most obvious generalisations have odd exceptions. For example,
            > we have in England the "National Front", a racist (pro white) political
            > organisations. One of their recent council candidates was of asian origin.

            That's odd. He's basically saying he himself is inferior and how on earth
            did he get that position? WHy would he want it?!??
          • Robin-Frans Winkel
            ... It depends on what you call Biblical Inerrancy. One should distinguish between Formal Inerrancy and Material Inerrancy. Formal Inerrancy means that someone
            Message 5 of 17 , Oct 7, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              >From: "Tim" <gamble@...>
              >Reply-To: creationism@onelist.com
              >To: <creationism@onelist.com>
              >Subject: Re: [creationism] Welcome to "creationism" at ONElist!
              >Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:35:47 -0000
              >
              > > Of course, this works both ways. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy
              > > who also advocate some particular empirical claim in criticism of, say,
              > > biological evolution, should not be criticized on the basis of "Well,
              > > you're just an advocate of biblical inerrancy, so, right off the bat,
              > > your argument is...." This is just another prejudicial comment, and is
              > > irrelevant to the genuine details of the topic.
              >
              >Just a few comments on this.
              >
              >I don't think this is a prejudicial comment, at least no more than calling
              >someone from the KKK a racist based on the fact that they're from the KKK.
              >If someone believes in biblical inerrancy they are not likely to be swayed
              >by any argument and are likely to reject evolution (not to mention
              >chemistry, astronomy, physics etc. depending on far they go) based on the
              >fact that it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible rather than any
              >scientific evidence against it. This is true with YEC's anyway.
              >
              >Take comments like these for example:
              >
              >"The instructed Christian knows that the evidences for full divine
              >inspiration of Scripture are far weightier than the evidences for any fact
              >of science. When confronted with the consistent Biblical testimony to a
              >universal Flood, the believer must certainly accept is as unquestioningly
              >true." -- John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p.
              >118)
              >
              >"The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is the fact that the
              >Bible denies it. The Bible is the Word of God, absolutely inerrant and
              >verbally inspired." --Henry Morris (Morris, 1967, p. 55)
              >
              >"...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of
              >history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that
              >God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined,
              >can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary
              >inferences of Scripture."
              >Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science
              >
              >"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative
              >and
              >perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the
              >same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest
              >possibility
              >that the "facts" of science can contradict the Bible."
              >Henry Morris in the first paragraph of Scientists Confront Creationism
              >
              >"We believe that the Bible, as the verbally inspired and completely
              >inerrant
              >Word of God, gives us the true framework of historical and scientific
              >interpretation . . . We take this revealed framework of history as our
              >basic
              >dictum, and then try to see how all the pertinent data can be understood in
              >this context." --John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961,
              >p. xxvi)
              >
              >"Even though we emphasize the scientific aspects of creationism--
              >especially
              >in our debates and campus seminars--we also stress the fact that all true
              >science supports Biblical creationism as well . . . We believe that God's
              >inerrant word must always prevail over the historical speculations of what
              >the Bible calls 'science falsely so called'." --Henry Morris (Morris, Back
              >to Genesis, October 1995)
              >
              >"The false presuppositions and implications of organic evolution and
              >geologic uniformitarianism need to be challenged in the name of Holy
              >Scripture." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 45)
              >
              >Not science, not logic, not evidence but "Holy Scripture"
              >
              >Are these comments not clearly prejudical? Would one be out of line for
              >calling them (or similar comments) prejudical? Then of course they're the
              >"statement of faith" that creationists have to sign which basically says
              >"the Bible is absolutely true regardless of any evidence whatsoever"
              >
              >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html
              >"Statement of Belief:
              >
              >1.The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired
              >throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in
              >the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the
              >account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple
              >historical
              >truths.
              >
              >2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct
              >creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis.
              >Whatever
              >biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished
              >only changes within the original created kinds.
              >
              >3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the
              >Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
              >
              >4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept
              >Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of
              >Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is
              >the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind.
              >Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our
              >Savior. "
              >
              >If this isn't predudical then what is? Scientists are not required to sign
              >a
              >statement of belief saying that "there is not God" or "evolution must be
              >true"
              >
              >Anyway, that's my 2cents.
              >If anyone wants to discuss evolution/creationism in a different (and IMHO
              >better) format then visit the Sympatico forums.
              >http://forums.sympatico.ca/WebX/WebX.cgi?13@...1za4Kophz^1@.ef3c254/3064
              >


              It depends on what you call Biblical Inerrancy. One should distinguish
              between Formal Inerrancy and Material Inerrancy. Formal Inerrancy means that
              someone believes that something is true BECAUSE it is written in the Bible,
              and then it is indeed intellectually dishonest to feign science, and
              Material Inerrancy, that is, someone thinks the account of Genesis happens
              to be coincide with scientific facts, but is willing to drop the Bible if it
              turns out to be wrong. In such case, discussion is still possible.
              By the way, I think the terms Creationism and Evolutionism should be better
              used for ideologies than scientific theories, which shouldn't be -isms. It
              is also wrong to use 'creation theory' for what in fact is Biblical
              Inerrancy. Creation theory is only the theory that there is a Creator, not
              neccessarily the Biblical one. Deism would be another possibility. It would,
              by the way, be nice to ask 'creationists' if they can prove which religion
              is right by just looking at the creation facts.
            • AutismUK@xxx.xxx
              In a message dated 07/10/99 14:28:27 GMT Daylight Time, rwinkel@hotmail.com writes: Robin: It would, by the way, be nice to ask creationists if they can
              Message 6 of 17 , Oct 7, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 07/10/99 14:28:27 GMT Daylight Time, rwinkel@...
                writes:

                Robin:
                It would,
                by the way, be nice to ask 'creationists' if they can prove which religion
                is right by just looking at the creation facts.

                Paul Robson:
                Something that is never really addressed. Too much Creationism
                (as in the Morris quotes above) is simply a list of "problems with
                evolution". Even if evolution is totally disproven, this provides no
                support at all for the creationist alternative ; or to be precise,
                alternatives.

                Behe's argument re:Design for example , tells us nothing other than
                there is a designer (if true, of course !).
              • Robin-Frans Winkel
                ... Nevertheless, still useful. Scientists need always to be on their guard for letting science becoming pseudoscience. Crackpots do have their place. ...
                Message 7 of 17 , Oct 7, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  >From: AutismUK@...
                  >Reply-To: creationism@onelist.com
                  >To: creationism@onelist.com
                  >Subject: Re: [creationism] Welcome to "creationism" at ONElist!
                  >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:29:21 EDT
                  >
                  >In a message dated 07/10/99 14:28:27 GMT Daylight Time, rwinkel@...
                  >writes:
                  >
                  >Robin:
                  > It would,
                  > by the way, be nice to ask 'creationists' if they can prove which
                  >religion
                  > is right by just looking at the creation facts.
                  >
                  >Paul Robson:
                  >Something that is never really addressed. Too much Creationism
                  >(as in the Morris quotes above) is simply a list of "problems with
                  >evolution".

                  Nevertheless, still useful. Scientists need always to be on their guard for
                  letting science becoming pseudoscience. 'Crackpots' do have their place.

                  >Even if evolution is totally disproven, this provides no
                  >support at all for the creationist alternative ; or to be precise,
                  >alternatives.

                  And of course, the other way around.

                  >Behe's argument re:Design for example , tells us nothing other than
                  >there is a designer (if true, of course !).

                  How true. Is Behe a professing Christian or a Deist? Voltaire was a
                  creationist too. If certain Christians think the battle is won when they rid
                  themselves of evolution they are wrong. Do they contemplate the consequences
                  of God existing and the Bible being wrong? Eternal damnation for making such
                  a fool out of God? May be they'll get more than they bargained for.
                • AutismUK@xxx.xxx
                  In a message dated 05/10/99 16:22:56 GMT Daylight Time, gamble@attcanada.net ... Tim: Evolution and physics and archeology and chemistry. etc. at least to some
                  Message 8 of 17 , Oct 7, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 05/10/99 16:22:56 GMT Daylight Time, gamble@...
                    writes:

                    > Paul Robson:
                    > Yes and no. Any believer in Biblical Inerrancy has to reject one of two
                    > things : a
                    > literal reading of Genesis, or evolution.

                    Tim:
                    Evolution and physics and archeology and chemistry. etc. at least to some
                    extent. The methods for determining the age of fossils, ancient
                    civilizations older than 10000 years old etc.

                    Paul Robson:
                    Well, if you view the "days" not as 24 hour days, as some inerrantists
                    do, the timescale is not a problem.

                    PSR:
                    > Even the most obvious generalisations have odd exceptions. For example,
                    > we have in England the "National Front", a racist (pro white) political
                    > organisations. One of their recent council candidates was of asian origin.

                    Tim:
                    That's odd. He's basically saying he himself is inferior and how on earth
                    did he get that position? WHy would he want it?!??

                    Paul Robson:
                    From what I remember he aligned himself with the "whites" against the
                    "blacks". Completely mad. Of course, its a great propoganda coup for
                    the NF, because they could point to him and say, see we aren't
                    racist :(
                  • Mark Fleharty
                    ... Creationists aren t even close to riding themselves of evolution. The intellegent design arguments have all failed for a number of reasons. The most
                    Message 9 of 17 , Oct 7, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >
                      > Nevertheless, still useful. Scientists need always to be on their guard for
                      > letting science becoming pseudoscience. 'Crackpots' do have their place.
                      >
                      > >Even if evolution is totally disproven, this provides no
                      > >support at all for the creationist alternative ; or to be precise,
                      > >alternatives.
                      >
                      > And of course, the other way around.
                      >
                      > >Behe's argument re:Design for example , tells us nothing other than
                      > >there is a designer (if true, of course !).
                      >
                      > How true. Is Behe a professing Christian or a Deist? Voltaire was a
                      > creationist too. If certain Christians think the battle is won when they rid
                      > themselves of evolution they are wrong. Do they contemplate the consequences
                      > of God existing and the Bible being wrong? Eternal damnation for making such
                      > a fool out of God? May be they'll get more than they bargained for.

                      Creationists aren't even close to riding themselves of evolution. The
                      intellegent
                      design arguments have all failed for a number of reasons. The most obvious
                      reason can be found when one looks at the genomes of various organisms.

                      There are several techniques for determining the types of mutations that
                      happened, once you have done this you can catagorize the mutations in
                      mutation matrices like PAM (Percent Accepted Mutation) matrices.
                      After doing this one realizes that the mutations remain relatively consistent
                      throughout evolutionary history. This strongly suggests that ID is not a
                      mechanism, especially when one realizes that these mutations matrices
                      coincide with what would be expected from solar radiation and other
                      mechanisms that cause mutations.

                      Respectfully,

                      Mark
                    • Mark Fleharty
                      ... It is still a problem because how long was the 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, etc. They would have to be all different lenghts. In addition the order is not
                      Message 10 of 17 , Oct 7, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        AutismUK@... wrote:

                        > From: AutismUK@...
                        >
                        > In a message dated 05/10/99 16:22:56 GMT Daylight Time, gamble@...
                        > writes:
                        >
                        > > Paul Robson:
                        > > Yes and no. Any believer in Biblical Inerrancy has to reject one of two
                        > > things : a
                        > > literal reading of Genesis, or evolution.
                        >
                        > Tim:
                        > Evolution and physics and archeology and chemistry. etc. at least to some
                        > extent. The methods for determining the age of fossils, ancient
                        > civilizations older than 10000 years old etc.
                        >
                        > Paul Robson:
                        > Well, if you view the "days" not as 24 hour days, as some inerrantists
                        > do, the timescale is not a problem.
                        >

                        It is still a problem because how long was the 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, etc.
                        They would have to be all different lenghts. In addition the order is not
                        quite correct. Most notably is, when were the stars made? Before or after
                        the earth?

                        Respectfully,

                        Mark
                      • AutismUK@xxx.xxx
                        In a message dated 07/10/99 16:43:13 GMT Daylight Time, rwinkel@hotmail.com ... Robin: Nevertheless, still useful. Scientists need always to be on their guard
                        Message 11 of 17 , Oct 7, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 07/10/99 16:43:13 GMT Daylight Time, rwinkel@...
                          writes:

                          >Paul Robson:
                          >Something that is never really addressed. Too much Creationism
                          >(as in the Morris quotes above) is simply a list of "problems with
                          >evolution".

                          Robin:
                          Nevertheless, still useful. Scientists need always to be on their guard for
                          letting science becoming pseudoscience. 'Crackpots' do have their place.

                          Paul Robson:
                          Yes, but the problem is creationism is almost totally negative. It
                          never gets beyond "this is a problem for evolution".

                          Basically I think this is because Creationists are scared to offer
                          a falsifiable alternative. If they "attack the opposition", their only
                          tactic, then they hope no-one will notice they aren't defending their
                          position against any criticisms - e.g. the impossibility of flood
                          geology and fossil sorting. Looking at *any* EvC debate anywhere,
                          or any creationist page will show that it is entirely "problems" for
                          evolution, "quotes" etc. (There may be one I don't know about,
                          of course, if so, please let me know)

                          Paul Robson:
                          >Even if evolution is totally disproven, this provides no
                          >support at all for the creationist alternative ; or to be precise,
                          >alternatives.

                          Robin:
                          And of course, the other way around.

                          Paul Robson:
                          True. Though until Creationists actually produce their alleged
                          "model" (i.e. one you can make some testable predictions from)
                          its unfalsifiable. Most of the innumerable problems with their
                          ideas are just wished away with "God did it like that, he can
                          do anything" as if this is some sort of explanation.

                          Of course, an "evolutionist" who just said "Quijlzonk made
                          evolution work like that" would be ridiculed, even though it is
                          equally an informative statement.

                          Robin:
                          How true. Is Behe a professing Christian or a Deist?

                          Paul Robson:
                          He is a Catholic ; it is in the book (apparently). Creationists should
                          beware of Behe ; he still supports the vast majority of "evolution".
                          They hope the faithful won't actually read it, presumably.

                          Robin:
                          Voltaire was a creationist too. If certain Christians think the battle is
                          won when they rid themselves of evolution they are wrong.

                          Paul Robson:
                          They wish to silence the opposition and win by default (i.e. no
                          competing argument). Despite the claims for equal time their
                          are clear pointers that what they actually want is creationism
                          only (e.g. Ellwanger's 81 depositions).

                          Robin:
                          Do they contemplate the consequences of God existing and
                          the Bible being wrong? Eternal damnation for making such
                          a fool out of God? May be they'll get more than they bargained for.

                          Paul Robson:
                          No they don't, generally. For many of them it is simply a
                          conceptual impossibility, I think. They not only don't think it,
                          they actually can't ; any entry into this field raises internal
                          barriers.
                        • AutismUK@xxx.xxx
                          In a message dated 07/10/99 14:28:27 GMT Daylight Time, rwinkel@hotmail.com writes: Robin: It would, by the way, be nice to ask creationists if they can
                          Message 12 of 17 , Oct 8, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 07/10/99 14:28:27 GMT Daylight Time, rwinkel@...
                            writes:

                            Robin:
                            It would,
                            by the way, be nice to ask 'creationists' if they can prove which religion
                            is right by just looking at the creation facts.

                            Paul Robson:
                            Something that is never really addressed. Too much Creationism
                            (as in the Morris quotes above) is simply a list of "problems with
                            evolution". Even if evolution is totally disproven, this provides no
                            support at all for the creationist alternative ; or to be precise,
                            alternatives.

                            Behe's argument re:Design for example , tells us nothing other than
                            there is a designer (if true, of course !).
                          • Robin-Frans Winkel
                            ... Catholics do in general.
                            Message 13 of 17 , Oct 8, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >From: AutismUK@...
                              >Reply-To: creationism@onelist.com
                              >To: creationism@onelist.com
                              >Subject: Re: [creationism] Welcome to "creationism" at ONElist!
                              >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 16:33:33 EDT
                              >
                              >In a message dated 07/10/99 16:43:13 GMT Daylight Time, rwinkel@...
                              >writes:
                              >
                              > >Paul Robson:
                              > >Something that is never really addressed. Too much Creationism
                              > >(as in the Morris quotes above) is simply a list of "problems with
                              > >evolution".
                              >
                              >Robin:
                              > Nevertheless, still useful. Scientists need always to be on their guard
                              >for
                              > letting science becoming pseudoscience. 'Crackpots' do have their place.
                              >
                              >Paul Robson:
                              > Yes, but the problem is creationism is almost totally negative. It
                              > never gets beyond "this is a problem for evolution".
                              >
                              > Basically I think this is because Creationists are scared to offer
                              > a falsifiable alternative. If they "attack the opposition", their only
                              > tactic, then they hope no-one will notice they aren't defending their
                              > position against any criticisms - e.g. the impossibility of flood
                              > geology and fossil sorting. Looking at *any* EvC debate anywhere,
                              > or any creationist page will show that it is entirely "problems" for
                              > evolution, "quotes" etc. (There may be one I don't know about,
                              > of course, if so, please let me know)
                              >
                              >Paul Robson:
                              > >Even if evolution is totally disproven, this provides no
                              > >support at all for the creationist alternative ; or to be precise,
                              > >alternatives.
                              >
                              >Robin:
                              > And of course, the other way around.
                              >
                              >Paul Robson:
                              > True. Though until Creationists actually produce their alleged
                              > "model" (i.e. one you can make some testable predictions from)
                              > its unfalsifiable. Most of the innumerable problems with their
                              > ideas are just wished away with "God did it like that, he can
                              > do anything" as if this is some sort of explanation.
                              >
                              > Of course, an "evolutionist" who just said "Quijlzonk made
                              > evolution work like that" would be ridiculed, even though it is
                              > equally an informative statement.
                              >
                              >Robin:
                              > How true. Is Behe a professing Christian or a Deist?
                              >
                              >Paul Robson:
                              > He is a Catholic ; it is in the book (apparently). Creationists should
                              > beware of Behe ; he still supports the vast majority of "evolution".
                              > They hope the faithful won't actually read it, presumably.

                              Catholics do in general.

                              >Robin:
                              > Voltaire was a creationist too. If certain Christians think the battle is
                              > won when they rid themselves of evolution they are wrong.
                              >
                              >Paul Robson:
                              > They wish to silence the opposition and win by default (i.e. no
                              > competing argument). Despite the claims for equal time their
                              > are clear pointers that what they actually want is creationism
                              > only (e.g. Ellwanger's 81 depositions).
                              >
                              >Robin:
                              > Do they contemplate the consequences of God existing and
                              > the Bible being wrong? Eternal damnation for making such
                              > a fool out of God? May be they'll get more than they bargained for.
                              >
                              >Paul Robson:
                              > No they don't, generally. For many of them it is simply a
                              > conceptual impossibility, I think. They not only don't think it,
                              > they actually can't ; any entry into this field raises internal
                              > barriers.
                              >
                              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              >Community email addresses:
                              > Post message: creationism@onelist.com
                              > Subscribe: creationism-subscribe@onelist.com
                              > Unsubscribe: creationism-unsubscribe@onelist.com
                              > List owner: creationism-owner@onelist.com
                              >
                              >Shortcut URL to this page:
                              > http://www.onelist.com/community/creationism
                              ><< text3.html >>
                            • raymondcrutcher
                              Before Creation there was only energy, but as energy it could not ccreate, so It transposed its self to a differnt type of energy whitch we call GOD. Now a God
                              Message 14 of 17 , Nov 3, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Before Creation there was only energy, but as energy it could not
                                ccreate, so It transposed its self to a differnt type of energy
                                whitch we call GOD.
                                Now a God this energy sorece could creat.
                                It created the universe, and evry thing in it.
                                The univers is GOD's ply ground, he loves to creat big, and little
                                thing, sech as glaxey, rocks, water, and life of all visable, and
                                invisable.
                                He injoys starting some thing and then sit back and watch what
                                hapens to it. Some times he will step in and change some thing, to
                                get it to do what it wonted it to do, but apenly frome my
                                oblervation he realy inter feers, but alow it to go to its end

                                I believe that the univers, and every thiing in it is GOD's play
                                ground
                                Raymond Crutcher brother in christ.




                                --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                                <tgreene@... wrote:
                                >
                                > Welcome to the ONElist "creationism" email discussion forum!
                                >
                                > You are getting this via the list, because you are a "charter
                                member."
                                > This list was just set up this weekend, and this is actually the
                                first
                                > message.
                                >
                                > Technically, this is an "unmoderated" list, meaning you can post
                                to the
                                > "creationism@onelist.com" at will. There is no one who "approves"
                                posts
                                > before they go out to list members.
                                >
                                > However, a few of the manual administration tasks are maintained
                                by the
                                > "list moderator" (that's me). If you have participated in
                                discussion
                                > forums like this before, you know that the moderator can draw up
                                sets of
                                > "rules of membership" or "rules of discussion" which she or he
                                wants you
                                > to follow as a participant in the forum. If you break the rules,
                                the
                                > moderator may (or may not) give you a warning, then after that just
                                > "ban" you from the list.
                                >
                                > The implementation of such rules on some lists seems quirky, based
                                on, I
                                > suppose, the quirkiness and/or agenda of the list moderator(s).
                                From
                                > May, 1999 through September, 1999, I participated in three
                                different
                                > discussion forums. In one, one of the moderators closed down the
                                > discussion, despite the fact that a number of the members in that
                                forum
                                > (other than myself) were discussing the topic and were asking me
                                > specific questions that they wanted me to answer. (I was the only
                                > advocate of the idea of an ancient universe in that forum.) In a
                                second
                                > forum, after only about a week or so, the moderator "zapped" the
                                entire
                                > discussion thread (we were discussing the alleged "comet mystery"),
                                > citing incivility in the discussion. In a third forum, my posts
                                were
                                > banned simply because I happened to *mention* the name of Hugh Ross
                                > while I was discussing the fact that there was a clear distinction
                                > between accepting the idea of an ancient universe and accepting
                                > biological evolution (which the list moderator, as a discussion
                                > participant, had disputed). That moderator had several weeks
                                previously
                                > "closed" discussion on whether Hugh Ross was an old earth
                                creationist or
                                > a theistic evolutionist. So by even mentioning Ross' name while
                                > discussing something else, I had transgressed the moderator's
                                bidding,
                                > as he let me know.
                                >
                                > Personally, I find this kind of behavior inappropriate. I know,
                                though,
                                > that those are their lists, and thus they can run them however they
                                > wish. But it seems to me that a person can act in the role of list
                                > moderator, and also participate in discussions, and keep these
                                roles
                                > separate. Thus, *I* have established this list, and I can "run it"
                                (or
                                > not) how *I* wish.
                                >
                                > Therefore, the purpose of this discussion forum is to discuss
                                topics
                                > relevant to creationism, and the discussion will be moderated ONLY
                                for
                                > "minimal netiquette" and NOT for "content." Thus, this forum will
                                > maintain a policy of "open discussion." Neither the topics for
                                > discussion, nor the ways in which an argument is advanced, will be
                                > controlled in any way by the moderator.
                                >
                                > So the rules for this list are pretty minimal:
                                >
                                > (1) No profanity.
                                > (2) Don't use prejudicial labels - deal with the relevant
                                details.
                                > (3) List policies:
                                > a. "Three strikes and you're out!"
                                > b. Be relevant to creationism.
                                >
                                > Further explanation:
                                >
                                > (1) No profanity.
                                >
                                > You know what the words are. You can say, "Your claim is very
                                irritating
                                > to me, and here's why..." or "Your comments are just prejudicial
                                and
                                > personally directed and thus irrelevant to the details of the
                                issue we
                                > are talking about, and it makes me angry that you constantly use
                                > prejudicial rhetoric instead of addressing the relevant details.
                                Here is
                                > why I think your comments can legitimately be described as simply
                                > 'prejudicial'...." But on this list, please don't say, "That really
                                > pi***s me off!" You can say, the same thing (while explaining
                                why), but
                                > you don't have to use "profane" words to do it. I have to say I'm
                                going
                                > to be a "stickler" on this one. "Darn it!" and "Golly!" is the
                                highest
                                > level of profanity allowed on this list. All right?
                                >
                                > (2) Please, please, please avoid the prejudicial labels, and deal
                                with
                                > the relevant details.
                                >
                                > If you really, genuinely believe that anyone who disagrees with
                                young
                                > earth creationism is "just an atheist" or is, at the least, "an
                                ally of
                                > atheists," then you really need to explain the specific reasons
                                for why
                                > you think this. I know of several writers, and I know some people
                                > personally, who: are not atheists; despise atheism; believe the
                                Bible is
                                > God's Word; advocate biblical inerrancy; AND accept the idea that
                                the
                                > universe is ancient. (Some also accept the idea of biological
                                > evolution.)
                                >
                                > (The other point to consider is that just because an atheist
                                argues in
                                > support of a particular idea, this does not necessarily imply
                                anything
                                > with respect to the validity of the idea. I had some math
                                professors in
                                > college who were atheists. But, believe me, if I had tried to do
                                > mathematical proofs based, in part, on whether or not my professor
                                was
                                > an atheist, I would have flunked. You have to consider the logic
                                and the
                                > empirical information that is relevant to the topic. Whether or
                                not a
                                > proponent is an atheist is, really, irrelevant.)
                                >
                                > Of course, this works both ways. Those who believe in biblical
                                inerrancy
                                > who also advocate some particular empirical claim in criticism of,
                                say,
                                > biological evolution, should not be criticized on the basis
                                of "Well,
                                > you're just an advocate of biblical inerrancy, so, right off the
                                bat,
                                > your argument is...." This is just another prejudicial comment,
                                and is
                                > irrelevant to the genuine details of the topic.
                                >
                                > Along with my pointing this out, I will also say this: The kind of
                                snide
                                > remarks that sometimes get made about a person's grammar or
                                spelling
                                > also fall into this category of being irrelevant to the details of
                                an
                                > issue (unless it is the grammar itself that makes what is stated
                                unclear
                                > and you are asking for clarification). We don't need snide remarks.
                                >
                                > Also, along with this: Please keep in mind that there really
                                is "life
                                > outside of cyberspace" (yes, I know, some of you may find this
                                hard to
                                > believe!), so please do not make snide remarks about someone's not
                                > "answering your argument" simply because she or he has made no
                                posts to
                                > the list for a few or several days. Okay? (Of course, if she or he
                                is
                                > making posts and still ignoring your comments, then maybe you have
                                a
                                > legitimate point to make!)
                                >
                                > (3) Acting in the role of list moderator, I would like to have no
                                policy
                                > at all. I don't think that will work well in practice. So here is a
                                > little bit of policy for this discussion forum:
                                >
                                > a. "Three strikes and you're out!"
                                >
                                > Regarding rules 1 and 2 above, there will be a standing "three
                                > strikes and you're out!" rule. As list moderator, I will warn
                                you
                                > twice, then I will ban you from the list. I will send such
                                warnings
                                > privately, to your email address. I will try to be a fair in my
                                > judgements as list moderator. And since I really don't have
                                much in
                                > the way of "rules" anyway, please respect the few that there
                                are.
                                >
                                > b. Be relevant to creationism.
                                >
                                > Unlike the moderators of those other discussion forums I
                                mentioned, I
                                > will not dictate much at all with regard to what you should or
                                should
                                > not be discussing. There is no "orthodoxy" here. I will NOT -
                                as list
                                > moderator - tell you what you should or should not be saying in
                                your
                                > advocating of your own arguments. (Though as a participant in
                                the
                                > discussion I might have a lot to say about it! <grin>) I ask
                                only
                                > that it be relevant to the general subject of creationism. And
                                I know
                                > that this actually covers a very wide and interesting range of
                                > topics. At first, I thought about excluding discussion that was
                                > specifically focused on theism/atheism, but then I realized
                                that from
                                > the evangelical Christian perspective this can become quite
                                relevant
                                > under the rubric of "apologetics," which many consider
                                creationism to
                                > be a critical component of.
                                >
                                >
                                > Finally, I would love to have a Rule #4: NO MISREPRESENTATION, but
                                I
                                > have no idea how to implement it in a neutral fashion, especially
                                since
                                > I can't read anyone's mind (as much as I think I can often
                                reasonably
                                > determine someone's attitude from what they write and how they
                                write
                                > it). Personally, I hate misrepresentation. I absolutely can't
                                stand it!
                                > As much as I agree or disagree with a person's overall
                                perspective, that
                                > person will "get on my bad side" very quickly if they engage in
                                > misrepresentation (and adamantly refuse to acknowledge correction
                                on it
                                > when they are corrected). So I have to acknowledge that *as list
                                > moderator* I will have to put up with misrepresentation, but *as
                                > discussion participant* I will be free to "call people on the
                                carpet"
                                > for engaging in misrepresentation (though I won't be using
                                profanity or
                                > prejudicial labelling to do it, and I will back up my claims with
                                > specific reasons). Since I believe "creationism@onelist.com"
                                should be
                                > an "open discussion" forum (unlike my experience in those other
                                three
                                > forums), I will rely on the "creationism@onelist.com community" to
                                > dynamically "work things out" with each other on this one. I'm
                                open to
                                > suggestions. We shall see how things develop.
                                >
                                > This forum is brand new, and I am new at acting as a list moderator
                                > (though I have been a "discussion participant" on the subject of
                                > creationism for many years!). So we shall see how things work out
                                on
                                > this list, and things will evolve (no pun intended). I am
                                certainly open
                                > to ideas and suggestions with regard to list administration and
                                > functioning in my role as list moderator.
                                >
                                > If and when I post something in my role as list moderator, such
                                posts
                                > will be clearly labelled as such. Otherwise, I'm simply
                                participating in
                                > the discussion just as you are. So when I'm discussing issues,
                                feel free
                                > to criticize my arguments just as you would anyone else's. I want
                                this
                                > to be explicitly clear to you, because I did not think I was
                                treated
                                > "neutrally" like this by the moderators of those other discussion
                                forums
                                > (perhaps because they didn't have a policy of "open discussion"),
                                and I
                                > want you to know that things are different here.
                                >
                                > So, now, let me get out of the way and let you go to it! Thank you
                                for
                                > joining the "creationism@onelist.com" discussion forum. "Lurk" a
                                while,
                                > if you wish, then jump in and participate. I'll "see you around."
                                >
                                > Sincerely,
                                > Todd S. Greene
                                > ONElist "creationism" moderator
                                > <creationism-owner@onelist.com>
                                >
                              • vgovianni
                                ... there was nothing before the universe. there was nothing for anything to exist in. the only possible explanation for the creation of the universe is it
                                Message 15 of 17 , Nov 4, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "raymondcrutcher"
                                  <raymondcrutcher@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Before Creation there was only energy, but as energy it could not
                                  > ccreate, so It transposed its self to a differnt type of energy
                                  > whitch we call GOD.
                                  > Now a God this energy sorece could creat.
                                  > It created the universe, and evry thing in it.
                                  > The univers is GOD's ply ground, he loves to creat big, and little
                                  > thing, sech as glaxey, rocks, water, and life of all visable, and
                                  > invisable.
                                  > He injoys starting some thing and then sit back and watch what
                                  > hapens to it. Some times he will step in and change some thing, to
                                  > get it to do what it wonted it to do, but apenly frome my
                                  > oblervation he realy inter feers, but alow it to go to its end
                                  >
                                  > I believe that the univers, and every thiing in it is GOD's play
                                  > ground
                                  > Raymond Crutcher brother in christ.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------------------------


                                  there was nothing before the universe.

                                  there was nothing for anything to exist in.

                                  the only possible explanation for the creation of the universe is it
                                  would have to have been created from the future by the only designers
                                  we know of......that being human beings.
                                • raymond crutcher
                                  Your reply to my Idea, has marrit but it is a little confusing, but think s for sending me your message. Raymond Brother in christ. vgovianni
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Nov 6, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Your reply to my Idea, has marrit but it is a little confusing, but think's for sending me your message. Raymond Brother in christ.

                                    vgovianni <vgovianni@...> wrote: --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "raymondcrutcher"
                                    <raymondcrutcher@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Before Creation there was only energy, but as energy it could not
                                    > ccreate, so It transposed its self to a differnt type of energy
                                    > whitch we call GOD.
                                    > Now a God this energy sorece could creat.
                                    > It created the universe, and evry thing in it.
                                    > The univers is GOD's ply ground, he loves to creat big, and little
                                    > thing, sech as glaxey, rocks, water, and life of all visable, and
                                    > invisable.
                                    > He injoys starting some thing and then sit back and watch what
                                    > hapens to it. Some times he will step in and change some thing, to
                                    > get it to do what it wonted it to do, but apenly frome my
                                    > oblervation he realy inter feers, but alow it to go to its end
                                    >
                                    > I believe that the univers, and every thiing in it is GOD's play
                                    > ground
                                    > Raymond Crutcher brother in christ.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------------------------

                                    there was nothing before the universe.

                                    there was nothing for anything to exist in.

                                    the only possible explanation for the creation of the universe is it
                                    would have to have been created from the future by the only designers
                                    we know of......that being human beings.






                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Sponsored Link

                                    Try Netflix today! With plans starting at only $5.99 a month what are you waiting for?

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • jacktogery
                                    ... hey, toddy. How are you
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Sep 26, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                                      <tgreene@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Welcome to the ONElist "creationism" email discussion forum!
                                      >
                                      > You are getting this via the list, because you are a "charter member."
                                      > This list was just set up this weekend, and this is actually the first
                                      > message.
                                      >
                                      > Technically, this is an "unmoderated" list, meaning you can post to the
                                      > "creationism@onelist.com" at will. There is no one who "approves" posts
                                      > before they go out to list members.
                                      >
                                      > However, a few of the manual administration tasks are maintained by the
                                      > "list moderator" (that's me). If you have participated in discussion
                                      > forums like this before, you know that the moderator can draw up sets of
                                      > "rules of membership" or "rules of discussion" which she or he wants you
                                      > to follow as a participant in the forum. If you break the rules, the
                                      > moderator may (or may not) give you a warning, then after that just
                                      > "ban" you from the list.
                                      >
                                      > The implementation of such rules on some lists seems quirky, based on, I
                                      > suppose, the quirkiness and/or agenda of the list moderator(s). From
                                      > May, 1999 through September, 1999, I participated in three different
                                      > discussion forums. In one, one of the moderators closed down the
                                      > discussion, despite the fact that a number of the members in that forum
                                      > (other than myself) were discussing the topic and were asking me
                                      > specific questions that they wanted me to answer. (I was the only
                                      > advocate of the idea of an ancient universe in that forum.) In a second
                                      > forum, after only about a week or so, the moderator "zapped" the entire
                                      > discussion thread (we were discussing the alleged "comet mystery"),
                                      > citing incivility in the discussion. In a third forum, my posts were
                                      > banned simply because I happened to *mention* the name of Hugh Ross
                                      > while I was discussing the fact that there was a clear distinction
                                      > between accepting the idea of an ancient universe and accepting
                                      > biological evolution (which the list moderator, as a discussion
                                      > participant, had disputed). That moderator had several weeks previously
                                      > "closed" discussion on whether Hugh Ross was an old earth creationist or
                                      > a theistic evolutionist. So by even mentioning Ross' name while
                                      > discussing something else, I had transgressed the moderator's bidding,
                                      > as he let me know.
                                      >
                                      > Personally, I find this kind of behavior inappropriate. I know, though,
                                      > that those are their lists, and thus they can run them however they
                                      > wish. But it seems to me that a person can act in the role of list
                                      > moderator, and also participate in discussions, and keep these roles
                                      > separate. Thus, *I* have established this list, and I can "run it" (or
                                      > not) how *I* wish.
                                      >
                                      > Therefore, the purpose of this discussion forum is to discuss topics
                                      > relevant to creationism, and the discussion will be moderated ONLY for
                                      > "minimal netiquette" and NOT for "content." Thus, this forum will
                                      > maintain a policy of "open discussion." Neither the topics for
                                      > discussion, nor the ways in which an argument is advanced, will be
                                      > controlled in any way by the moderator.
                                      >
                                      > So the rules for this list are pretty minimal:
                                      >
                                      > (1) No profanity.
                                      > (2) Don't use prejudicial labels - deal with the relevant details.
                                      > (3) List policies:
                                      > a. "Three strikes and you're out!"
                                      > b. Be relevant to creationism.
                                      >
                                      > Further explanation:
                                      >
                                      > (1) No profanity.
                                      >
                                      > You know what the words are. You can say, "Your claim is very irritating
                                      > to me, and here's why..." or "Your comments are just prejudicial and
                                      > personally directed and thus irrelevant to the details of the issue we
                                      > are talking about, and it makes me angry that you constantly use
                                      > prejudicial rhetoric instead of addressing the relevant details. Here is
                                      > why I think your comments can legitimately be described as simply
                                      > 'prejudicial'...." But on this list, please don't say, "That really
                                      > pi***s me off!" You can say, the same thing (while explaining why), but
                                      > you don't have to use "profane" words to do it. I have to say I'm going
                                      > to be a "stickler" on this one. "Darn it!" and "Golly!" is the highest
                                      > level of profanity allowed on this list. All right?
                                      >
                                      > (2) Please, please, please avoid the prejudicial labels, and deal with
                                      > the relevant details.
                                      >
                                      > If you really, genuinely believe that anyone who disagrees with young
                                      > earth creationism is "just an atheist" or is, at the least, "an ally of
                                      > atheists," then you really need to explain the specific reasons for why
                                      > you think this. I know of several writers, and I know some people
                                      > personally, who: are not atheists; despise atheism; believe the Bible is
                                      > God's Word; advocate biblical inerrancy; AND accept the idea that the
                                      > universe is ancient. (Some also accept the idea of biological
                                      > evolution.)
                                      >
                                      > (The other point to consider is that just because an atheist argues in
                                      > support of a particular idea, this does not necessarily imply anything
                                      > with respect to the validity of the idea. I had some math professors in
                                      > college who were atheists. But, believe me, if I had tried to do
                                      > mathematical proofs based, in part, on whether or not my professor was
                                      > an atheist, I would have flunked. You have to consider the logic and the
                                      > empirical information that is relevant to the topic. Whether or not a
                                      > proponent is an atheist is, really, irrelevant.)
                                      >
                                      > Of course, this works both ways. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy
                                      > who also advocate some particular empirical claim in criticism of, say,
                                      > biological evolution, should not be criticized on the basis of "Well,
                                      > you're just an advocate of biblical inerrancy, so, right off the bat,
                                      > your argument is...." This is just another prejudicial comment, and is
                                      > irrelevant to the genuine details of the topic.
                                      >
                                      > Along with my pointing this out, I will also say this: The kind of snide
                                      > remarks that sometimes get made about a person's grammar or spelling
                                      > also fall into this category of being irrelevant to the details of an
                                      > issue (unless it is the grammar itself that makes what is stated unclear
                                      > and you are asking for clarification). We don't need snide remarks.
                                      >
                                      > Also, along with this: Please keep in mind that there really is "life
                                      > outside of cyberspace" (yes, I know, some of you may find this hard to
                                      > believe!), so please do not make snide remarks about someone's not
                                      > "answering your argument" simply because she or he has made no posts to
                                      > the list for a few or several days. Okay? (Of course, if she or he is
                                      > making posts and still ignoring your comments, then maybe you have a
                                      > legitimate point to make!)
                                      >
                                      > (3) Acting in the role of list moderator, I would like to have no policy
                                      > at all. I don't think that will work well in practice. So here is a
                                      > little bit of policy for this discussion forum:
                                      >
                                      > a. "Three strikes and you're out!"
                                      >
                                      > Regarding rules 1 and 2 above, there will be a standing "three
                                      > strikes and you're out!" rule. As list moderator, I will warn you
                                      > twice, then I will ban you from the list. I will send such warnings
                                      > privately, to your email address. I will try to be a fair in my
                                      > judgements as list moderator. And since I really don't have much in
                                      > the way of "rules" anyway, please respect the few that there are.
                                      >
                                      > b. Be relevant to creationism.
                                      >
                                      > Unlike the moderators of those other discussion forums I mentioned, I
                                      > will not dictate much at all with regard to what you should or should
                                      > not be discussing. There is no "orthodoxy" here. I will NOT - as list
                                      > moderator - tell you what you should or should not be saying in your
                                      > advocating of your own arguments. (Though as a participant in the
                                      > discussion I might have a lot to say about it! <grin>) I ask only
                                      > that it be relevant to the general subject of creationism. And I know
                                      > that this actually covers a very wide and interesting range of
                                      > topics. At first, I thought about excluding discussion that was
                                      > specifically focused on theism/atheism, but then I realized that from
                                      > the evangelical Christian perspective this can become quite relevant
                                      > under the rubric of "apologetics," which many consider creationism to
                                      > be a critical component of.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Finally, I would love to have a Rule #4: NO MISREPRESENTATION, but I
                                      > have no idea how to implement it in a neutral fashion, especially since
                                      > I can't read anyone's mind (as much as I think I can often reasonably
                                      > determine someone's attitude from what they write and how they write
                                      > it). Personally, I hate misrepresentation. I absolutely can't stand it!
                                      > As much as I agree or disagree with a person's overall perspective, that
                                      > person will "get on my bad side" very quickly if they engage in
                                      > misrepresentation (and adamantly refuse to acknowledge correction on it
                                      > when they are corrected). So I have to acknowledge that *as list
                                      > moderator* I will have to put up with misrepresentation, but *as
                                      > discussion participant* I will be free to "call people on the carpet"
                                      > for engaging in misrepresentation (though I won't be using profanity or
                                      > prejudicial labelling to do it, and I will back up my claims with
                                      > specific reasons). Since I believe "creationism@onelist.com" should be
                                      > an "open discussion" forum (unlike my experience in those other three
                                      > forums), I will rely on the "creationism@onelist.com community" to
                                      > dynamically "work things out" with each other on this one. I'm open to
                                      > suggestions. We shall see how things develop.
                                      >
                                      > This forum is brand new, and I am new at acting as a list moderator
                                      > (though I have been a "discussion participant" on the subject of
                                      > creationism for many years!). So we shall see how things work out on
                                      > this list, and things will evolve (no pun intended). I am certainly open
                                      > to ideas and suggestions with regard to list administration and
                                      > functioning in my role as list moderator.
                                      >
                                      > If and when I post something in my role as list moderator, such posts
                                      > will be clearly labelled as such. Otherwise, I'm simply participating in
                                      > the discussion just as you are. So when I'm discussing issues, feel free
                                      > to criticize my arguments just as you would anyone else's. I want this
                                      > to be explicitly clear to you, because I did not think I was treated
                                      > "neutrally" like this by the moderators of those other discussion forums
                                      > (perhaps because they didn't have a policy of "open discussion"), and I
                                      > want you to know that things are different here.
                                      >
                                      > So, now, let me get out of the way and let you go to it! Thank you for
                                      > joining the "creationism@onelist.com" discussion forum. "Lurk" a while,
                                      > if you wish, then jump in and participate. I'll "see you around."
                                      >
                                      > Sincerely,
                                      > Todd S. Greene
                                      > ONElist "creationism" moderator
                                      > <creationism-owner@onelist.com>
                                      >

                                      hey, toddy. How are you
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.