Creationist idiot round 2

[Darth Wong]

You may recall this guy from the "Latest Creationist Idiots" thread:

Name: James Roche
E-Mail: professorjohnnycash@yahoo.com
Comments: Hello, I found your site on portal of evil(ha) and while the whole star wars vs. trek thing is entirely uniteresting to me, I did take note of the 'creationism vs. science' rant.

I'd like to point out that science is far from having the moral high ground on this issue. (So you don't mismiss me out of hand, as I wouldn't entirely blame you for, I'm not a creationist) They aggressively present evolution as solid, scientific fact, which it simply is not. That's why it's still a theory, and until they find proof, and much more proof than simply the missing link, it will remain as such. I won't bother going into detail, as you can figure out some of the gaping holes in the theory by yourself.

You may not call yourself a creationist, but by your words, you are one. What "gaping holes in the theory" of evolution do you refer to? Are you aware that evolution is both theory AND fact? How much of my website have you actually read, since your statements are clearly refuted within? And are you aware that the "moral high ground" has nothing to do with logic and factual accuracy, ie- the only criteria relevant to a discussion of scientific validity?

Is there any wrong with that? No, but aggressively enforcing a theory that's own inventor renounced before his death as firm, 100% fact, simply because it's the first good argument against Biblical scholars that science got it's hands on, there is something wrong with that. Quite frankly, both are far, far away from being even remotely conclusive, and neither should be taught alone in schools, although the seperation of church and state would obviously not allow both.

Wrong. Evolution is both fact and theory. It is the only scientifically valid theory, and Darwin's deathbed confession (a creationist LIE, by the way) has no bearing on that fact (something you would understand if you had the
foggiest grasp of scientific methods). It is the only theory which should be taught in science class because it is the only theory which is justifiable based on logic and our observations of objective reality.

While religion has been pretty consistent over the years, science is not nearly as infamous as it should be for it's flip-flopping.

Scientific "flip-flopping", as you call it, is proof that the scientific method works. The scientific community can change its positions because it is capable of questioning them. In fact, it is REQUIRED to constantly question them because that is how the scientific method works.

The first strong theory that comes along is declared as fact, and anyone, scientist, bible-thumper, or what have you, that comes along arguing against it, no matter how many facts they might have, is usually declared a crack-pot, his evidence dismissed out of hand, and his reputation as muddied as the scientific community can manage.

It's amazing that you can contradict yourself so easily. First you say that scientists "flip-flop", then you insist that they dogmatically cling to outmoded theories despite contradictory evidence! Are you even TRYING to THINK while you type this nonsense? Sadly, your failure to present a logically self-consistent argument is typical of creationists.

By the way, I challenge you to provide one example of the scientific community permanently rejecting a scientific theory which can be shown to be scientifically valid and superior to an existing theory. Brief resistance is normal and an inevitable result of human nature, but I defy you to
demonstrate ONE example of such a theory which is not eventually accepted by the entire scientific community.

This is, after all, a descendant of the same scientific community that threw people out of towers for being stupid enough to declare the earth round.

Your ignorance of both science and history astounds me. it was CHRISTIANS who threatened to kill people for declaring that the Earth is round or that it resolves around the Sun, not scientists. Find me ONE historical reference source showing a mob of scientists conducting their own version of a witch hunt. Do you even TRY to verify these kinds of stories before spouting them in public?

The fact that science even declares that the evolutionary theory debunks religions is a sign that alot of scientists ranting are doing so out of spite, rather than conviction.

Why do you say that? Evolution theory, geological theory, astrophysical theory, and thermodynamics all debunk Genesis. That is a fact, and your fallacious "appeal to motive" (that's the name of a logical fallacy; look it up) will not erase it.

If a natural plan as complex as evolution exists, a huge, integral framework in which every thing affects everything, and that animals adapt perfectly to their surroundings as according to their needs doesn't sound like an intentional idea that was created by a sentient entity, I dont know what does. The almost ludicrously complex natural order that science suggests doesn't simply happen.

You are ASSUMING that evolution is planned. You are ASSUMING that animal adaptation to its environment is "perfect". Worse yet, you are ASSUMING that adaptation requires sentient intervention, even though the mechanism of natural adaptation has been observed in nature and tested in experiment. And finally, you are ASSUMING that high levels of complexity are indicative of deliberate design rather than undirected activity, when in reality, deliberate design always favours simplicity and elegance, not chaos and complexity.

Your glaring ignorance of scientific methods and the theory of evolution is becoming ever more clear. You may SAY you're not a creationist, but it's blatantly obvious that despite your denials, you ARE definitely a card-carrying, science-hating dyed-in-the-wool creationist, and a typically
ignorant one to boot.

I'm not arguing for either side, really, as my beliefs are my own. But to my view, both sides are ignoring the fact that their ideas lock together quite nicely, and are simply arguing out of a huge mutual spite that's been boiling up since the dark ages.

Wrong; the hatred is entirely one-sided. Your religion hates science and wishes to censor it whenever it dares contradict religious dogma. Science, on the other hand, merely needs religion to stop sticking its nose in the business of scientists and insisting that they waste time seriously considering (or worse yet, teaching) theories which haven't a shred of supporting evidence.

Religion created crusades, jihads, and inquisitions.

Finally, you've gotten something right. However, in the context of this particular argument (as opposed to one about religion and morality), it is irrelevant. The point is that religion has no basis or justification in objective reality, hence it is subjective and has no place in schools, except as a subject of anthropological or sociological study. Its history of atrocities is certainly clear disproof of the ridiculous "faith = morality" causality claim, but it has no bearing here.

Science has gifted us with killer bees, the abyssal void of culture that is the internet, global warming and a slew of diseases.

That is TECHNOLOGY, not science. You obviously don't even know the difference between science and technology. How sad.

I'm not sure where either sides gets off claiming they're perfect.

"Appeal to consequence" fallacy; you are trying to claim that science cannot claim to be accurate because the technology derived from science can be harmful. Obviously, you are not only ignorant of science and history but you are also staggeringly irrational, because you clearly haven't thought this through. These harmful technologies you speak of; does it occur to you that if science was invalid, THEY WOULDN'T WORK? It is irrelevant whether they have been used wisely; the point is that science DOES work, hence its usefulness in designing new technologies, and your attempt to cite the powerful impact of those technologies as disproof of science is simply laughable.

Well, guess what: he sent a rebuttal! He might make it onto my Hate Mail page after all.

Heh, well, you certainly seem to have your panties in a bunch.

I don't like ignorance. Sue me.

What gaping holes in the theory? Well, the misssing link for one, obviously. You'd think that someone who tries to pass themselves off as a scientist would remember a household term.

And you figure that by virtue of being a household term, that must make it correct? ESP is a household term too. So what? The only "missing link" is the one in your logic. Many pre-human fossils have been found by archaeologists since the 19th century when Darwin wrote his book.

That and many evolutionary links are based on the unproven Pangea theory.

Of course the Pangea theory is "unproven". ALL scientific theories are unproven; didn't you know that? But continental drift has been observed, tectonic plate theory is highly reliable, and the possibility of land bridges between currently separated continents in the distant past is hardly as unreasonable as you want to make it seem.

By the way, evolutionary links are never "based" on continental drift. They are invariably based on inter-species homology, with continental drift only coming into play in situations where an animal and an obvious evolutionary descendant (by homology and timeframe) live on opposite sides of a body of water. It's simple a matter of putting two and two together; if you see an animal in one region and then you see an almost identical animal shortly
afterwards just across an adjacent body of water, it doesn't take a genius to see that they might have migrated. If continental drift theories help make such migration possible, that merely lends additional support.

Theory AND fact? That's like saying 'opinion and fact', it simply can't be both, any more than it could be hypothesis and theory at the same time.

Wrong (but thanks for reminding us all of how ignorant the average creationist is). You draw a false dilemma, thus brilliantly demonstrating yet again that you haven't got the foggiest grasp of science.

Gravity is both a fact and theory: we can observe that objects fall, and we also have a theory we can use to predict the nature and rate of gravitational attraction. Similarly, We have observed evolution in nature. We also have a working theory as to how it works. It is both fact and theory.

A serious discussion of scientific validity? Your hubris amazes me, THIS IS THE FUCKING INTERNET, not the goddamn New England Journal of Medicine or what have you.

The Internet is a perfectly valid venue for serious discussions. The fact that you are seemingly incapable of such discussions is your problem, not mine.

Also, if you had actually paid attention, rather than immaturely looked for ways to attack a non-aggressive letter, you'd realize I was in no way packaging it as a 'serious debate'.

So it's "immature" for me to respond to a series of arguments which are clearly wrong by pointing that fact out? How is that "immature?"

You are being dishonest. You claim that you were not attempting any kind of "serious debate", but from where I sit, it looks like you take this much more seriously than you're willing to admit.

If you don't like having your mistakes pointed out, too bad. As you say, THIS IS THE FUCKING INTERNET, and if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Don't whine or cry foul; YOU sent ME unsolicited E-mail, and I can respond to it however I damned well please.

A creationist lie? Please. It's well documented. And 'deathbed' is a dramatization, really, he contradicted it well before he was actually dying.

Show me this mysterious documentation of Darwin rejecting evolution. And I notice that you quietly ignored the part of my message where I pointed out that even if it were true, it would have no bearing on the validity of the theory.

You're quite enamored with the term 'scientific method'. It's nice to see you hung onto your 7th grade earth science book. It seems to be the basis for most of your arguments. I remember a similar passage from mine.

Mockery doth not a logical argument make. The fact is that you ARE quite obviously ignorant of the scientific method (you make no distinction between observation, theory, or even resulting technology, for example), and while YOUR scientific education seems to have ceased in Grade 7, mine didn't. This may come as a shock to you, but the REST of us have considerably more advanced science textbooks than the stuff we got in Grade 7.

I'm a creationist? Thanks for telling me, I'll be sure to incorporate that into my world view ASAP. By the way, you can look this up in your argument handbook (or webpage, probably). What you're doing is attacking the person, rather than the argument.

Wrong. I am pointing out that you are a creationist because your arguments are all creationist arguments. You foolishly confuse "criticism of a man based on his arguments" with "criticism of an argument based on the man". The former is what I have done; the latter a fallacy and it is what YOU are doing, since you "refute" many of my points by attacking me and ignoring the point. Keep trying; someday, you'll figure out what a logical fallacy is.

By the way, I challenge you to provide one example of the scientific community permanently rejecting a scientific theory which can be shown to be scientifically valid and superior to an existing theory ...

The Acambaro figurines. While many of them ( The aliens and so forth) are probably hoaxes, a great number of them have stood up to any testing science has cared to throw at them.

You obviously don't know how to read. An archaeological dig is NOT a scientific theory! Don't you know the difference between evidence and theories? Scientists have carbon-dated those figurines to be thousands of years old. That's good enough for most scientists, and it's good enough for me. The problem is the CONCLUSION you draw from those figurines, not the figurines themselves.

And yet, the archealogical community has dismissed the entire site, and anything from it as a hoax. The burden of proof lays on the accuser, yet science hasn't deemed fit to even attempt to prove, and rather, simply ignore. It's a favorite rant of cryptozoologists, I'm sure you can find something on it.

I don't see any scientific organizations attempting to pretend that these artifacts don't exist; all I see are creationists trying to take an interesting anthropological and archaeological discovery and pretend that it means something other than what it does. And when the scientific community does not share their conclusions, they call it a "cover-up" even though it is nothing of the sort.

The fact is that the Acambaro figurines are interesting and creative, but creationists wish to use them as proof that dinosaurs and man co-existed 6000 years ago. This is simply moronic; let me educate you on one particular aspect of the scientific method, since you apparently stopped learning science in Grade 7, as you boast so proudly: a theory which can explain one particular piece of evidence but only at the cost of ignoring everything else is not a good theory.

The depth of dinosaur fossils and the separation of said fossils in time from modern civilization is uniform all around the globe. In Acambaro, we find some figurines of what appear to be snakes and lizards with arms and legs
artistically added, as was common in certain forms of prehistoric art and religion, particularly the more animistic styles. The rational explanation is simple: some of the many thousands of figurines at Acambaro bear a striking resemblance to certain types of dinosaur, but this is obviously coincidental, as indicated by the many thousands of sculptures which bear no resemblance whatsoever to any dinosaur which ever lived.

Think about it: these figurines may look pretty good for sheer coincidence, but even the best ones are pretty awful renditions for people who have supposedly seen living dinosaurs with their own eyes. In fact, most of them are quite OBVIOUSLY non-vertebrate snakes with legs attached, as demonstrated by their elongation and arching bodies (except for the ones that look like exaggerated crocodiles). Look at the structure of the bodies, with their thin, flexible torsos. They are artistic creations, quite fascinating from an anthropological standpoint but hardly disproof of the fossil record. All ancient cultures invented fanciful animals for worship; the Chinese invented dragons, the Greeks invented Satyrs and unicorns, and in Acambaro, they
obviously made various combinations of crocodiles and snakes (this is much more obvious when you see examples of the figurines they choose NOT to put pictures of on creationist websites), not knowing that someone would someday interpret their creations as sculptures of something they MUST have seen walking around with their own eyes.

Your ignorance of both science and history astounds me. it was CHRISTIANS who threatened to kill people for declaring that the Earth is round or that it resolves around the Sun, not scientists.

...it was pre-industrial era Europe. EVERYONE WHO WASN'T A MOOR WAS A CHRISTIAN. The idea that you're either a scientist or a christian is a relatively new one, you know.

Too bad. The point is that they weren't scientists, since they weren't practicing the scientific method (you know, that thing you don't understand, so you try to make fun of anyone who mentions it). Your shameless attempt to claim that scientists have thrown people out of towers for heresy is a lie, and you have proven yourself unable to defend it.

The fact that you've responded to a letter that would
have best decribed as 'bemused' with a rather laughable level of venom and virulence prooves my point

Style over substance fallacy. You are trying to claim that you're a really nice guy and I'm being rude, as if this "prooves" your laughable arguments correct (ironically, in the midst of a series of personal attacks, which is how you will conclude this message).

and the fact that you attempted to out of hand label me as a creationist to rationalize away any arguments as nonsense doesn't hurt.

Strawman fallacy. I have addressed every one of your arguments directly. The fact that I pointed out your obvious dishonesty is merely icing on the cake.

Kudos on misusing the term 'logical fallacy' by the way.

Show me an example of where I misused it.

And thermodynamics debunk the book of Genesis? Hunh? If you say so.

I notice you forgot to mention geology and astrophysics; I said they ALL debunk Genesis. In any case, perform a simple energy balance on a 1 kilometre thick global layer of water (not enough to cover the mountains or even the continents, but I'm being generous to the Biblical inerrantists' sad cause) falling from, say, 10km up. Better yet, perform a simple energy balance on the gravitational potential energy that would have to be released if a planet was formed in one day. For that matter, try to rationalize the six-day creation with the timescales of the universe (for the first two thirds of the universe's existence, this planet did not even exist; yet 4 of 6 "days" would have passed). Or better yet, explain how the Earth was created before the Sun, or the Sun created before all of the other stars.

Just to make it easy on you, I'll forego all of the challenges except for the first one: if you can figure out how to do the elementary energy balance for a 1km thick global flood, you will realize that yes, thermodynamics does
indeed debunk the book of Genesis.

Simplicity and elegance... that explains the billions
of species of all different sorts all over the world, and how one species brought into an alien environment can totally demolish it. (around 30% of Australia is fenced off because of garden variety jack-rabbits) Calling nature simple is ludicrous.

Strawman. I never said nature was simple and elegant. I said that INTELLIGENT DESIGN tends to be simple and elegant. Nature, on the other hand, is not simple and it is not elegant, ie- it is not intelligently designed. Do I need
to explain this to you a THIRD time, or do you get it now?

And don't be a jack-ass. Natural adaption and evolution aren't the same. Evolution takes millions of years, I don't think scientists can sit still that long.

Actually, natural adaptation and evolution ARE the same. Your ignorance is not a valid argument. And evolution can take place over very short timescales; see the South American guppy experiments. Small changes over small timescales, huge changes over huge timescales. What part of this do you not understand?

Religion wants to censor science? When, since the Scopes trial?

You forgot to mention every educational battle to censor evolution theory and sexual education from the public school systems in North America for the last hundred years.

Are you are aware that there's a scientific movement on-going to ban any scientist, no matter whom, who has any religious affiliation from public debates?

Name the major movers and shakers behind this "movement", and name any successes they've had in advancing their agenda. Explain how they would go about "banning" religious scientists from public debates which anyone can hold anywhere they please.

Of course you wouldn't, because you're just some fat kid huffing behind a Dell computer with a Carl Sagan booked clutched in his stubby fist.

So you'd like to think, wouldn't you? It would make you feel so much better to pretend that you're intellectually superior to me or that I'm just some kid rather than an adult who obviously knows far more about this than you do.

Cute. A simple reading of a Crusades history would
make you realize how stupid you sound, but seeing as you don't listen to anything but the sound of your own voice, que sera sera.

Yet again, you crow that I'm wrong, but you don't provide a shred of evidence or even a flimsy attempt at explanation.

That is TECHNOLOGY, not science. You obviously don't even know the difference between science and technology. How sad.

What are you, fucking retarded? Are just obnoxiously coy? If science, and scientists, don't create technology, who does? Elves? The Sith?

Technology is created by ENGINEERS, you idiot. I know, because I AM an engineer. Scientists don't create technology; they create theories which engineers use in order to design technologies. Get it? Scientists make theories and engineers apply theories. You seem to have that wonderful creationist combination of arrogance and ignorance; you haven't got a clue how anything works, yet you have the utmost confidence that you can run around telling people that they're wrong about subjects which they've studied and you haven't.

"Appeal to consequence" fallacy; you are trying to claim that science cannot claim to be accurate because the technology derived from science can be harmful.

Who says that? (Another nice misuse of a term, by the how) All I said that science's overall 'gifts' to mankind have been dubious as best. Ask Czar Nicholaus II.

You said that in support of your ridiculous argument that creation science and evolution science are on equal footing, which is an appeal to consequence fallacy as I said before. Don't try to evade the inevitable criticism that comes from relying exclusively upon fallacies.

As disproof of science? Who said anything about disproving science, you mouth breater? Stop inventing ghosts and defeating them, you're not impressing anyonee but your mom, perhaps.

If you stop using fallacies, I'll stop criticizing you for them.

By the way, no, I haven't read anything else on your
site. Why would I?

Because the relevant sections at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism refute your ignorant arguments. But of course, that's PRECISELY why you DON'T want to read it, isn't it?

You claim that it's simply a hobby, but there's ream after ream of pseudo-science gibberish, so you obviously care, way too much.

Yet again, you make criticisms but you fail to provide examples, logic, or evidence. All you have are a stream of endless personal attacks, made while PRETENDING not to be taking this too seriously.

who's tiny model ship hung by string in a panorama has a more powerful red flashlight. Obviously this is your only avenue to success in life. But you should probably stop to think...you're arguing, in detail, with months of work who INVENTED a more powerful FICTIONAL army, using WEAPONS THAT WILL NEVER, EVER EXIST. If George Lucas came out with that 7th movie and said 'All the Sith ride magical dragons, and have pistols that can blow up planets. The End. Oh, and they're invisible, too.' Then the whole thing would automatically become moot. And considering what a hack writer Lucas is, I wouldn't put it past him.

Ah, so you try to attack the accuracy of my creationism critiques by making fun of the fact that I also run a science fiction website? I see you still haven't the foggiest idea what's wrong with the ad hominem attack.

Yes, it's a silly hobby to analyze sci-fi. Almost as ridiculous as analyzing Shakespeare for hidden meaning, or studying the collected works of Hemingway in search of revelations about human nature. So what? At least I don't
pretend it's anything more than a hobby, which is why I have a regular job to pay the bills. Do you really think that I plan to achieve "success in life" with this NON-PROFIT website of mine?

And in any case, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on my critiques of creationism, and your pathetic attempt to equate my creationism critiques to my science fiction hobby is the most transparent ad hominem fallacy I have ever seen.

Now if you'll excuse me, while you're off saving the world for Ray Bradbury, I'm off to an actual,important job. As we say in Boston 'WAAAANK!'

Lemme see ... so far, your feeble attempt to shore up your ignorant attacks on evolution theory consist exclusively of:

1. Creationist claims without a shred of evidence (and I note; you repeatedly cite claims which are common in creationist literature but nowhere else, yet you deny that you are a creationist).
2. Mockery of the scientific method (ie- mockery of that which you don't understand).
3. Personal attacks; accusing me of having no scientific education despite my degree, being a "fat kid huffing behind a Dell computer with a Carl Sagan booked clutched in his stubby fist", or pretending that my authorship of a science fiction website somehow invalidates my critiques of creationism.
4. Style over substance fallacies in which you dismiss my arguments because I'm not being very nice to you (a rather ironic attack in light of your increasing use of virulent personal insults).

Is this really the best you can do?

[David]

That guy was just pathetic. And I'm sure I know what "important" job he was talking about ~








Busboy!

[Wicked Pilot]

That was funny. I am however disappointed that he didn't use the dolphin arguement.

We should invite this idiot to the board. We need a new creationist wipping boy.

[Antediluvian]

The one thing that astounded me about this guy (well, it all astounded me, but that's besides the point) was that he said science's gifts to humanity are "dubious" at best!

You mean like the computer that he typed that crap on?

Or the vehicle that he drives to work?

Or the home he lives in?

Or the TV he watches?

Or the microwave/stove he cooks his food in/on?

They're all of dubious value?

Okay...

He owes all of that to science! Where does he think it comes from? A stork?

How can anyone be this stupid, Michael?

[Alferd Packer]

Oh man oh man, did I laugh! That was hilarious. Does this guy have an inferiority complex because he's stupid, or is he stupid because he has an inferiority complex?

[Alyeska]

Current score:
Mike - 2
Creationist - 0

[Wicked Pilot]

Broader current score:

Science: A fucking lot

Creationist idiots: 0

[Darth Yoshi]

Don't invite him. He might bring his friends, and then we'd be swamped with idiots that make DarkStar look good.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

This is just too funny. His scientific background really did cease at 7th grade. Almost every single one of Mike's rebuttles is taught on a highschool level if not, the undergraduate level in college. ( Of course that is being very generous). Particularly when in came to the scientific method, evolution, and the difference between science and technology.

[Master of Ossus]

This is also funny. Even better than his first post. Maybe he should stick to reading about space aliens in Erich Van Daniken crap.

[CorSec]

For what it's worth, when I graduated I knew that natural adaptation and evolution were the same thing. Maybe he wasn't paying attention in 7th grade or something.

Of course you wouldn't, because you're just some fat kid huffing behind a Dell computer with a Carl Sagan booked clutched in his stubby fist.

That just made me laugh. You have to admit, it's funny. Almost Comic Book Guy funny. Almost.

I had never heard of the Acambaro dig or the artifacts recovered, but the first counterpoint I thought of was Egyptian murals. Oh, didn't you know? Back in the day, Egypt was full of man-dogs and man-birds. But we naturally adapted to life on Earth, you know walking around with man shaped heads instead. I'd call it evolution of the species, but it didn't happen slowly enough.

[Lagmonster]

You may recall this guy from the "Latest Creationist Idiots" thread: James Roche

Well done, Mike. Let's all hope for a third round. Well...not for your sake, having to deal with him, but your fans love this shit.

[Dirty Harry]

shit, this guy just wont give up will he!

[Next of Kin]

Why not invite this fundamentalist goofball to this board where he can be pummelled by everyone and their brother?

[aerius]

I doubt anything short of electroshock therapy will change this idiot's mind. There was a nice article in The Sceptic a while back that dealt with all this creationist garbage, I need to go read it or Wong's site again to get all this creationist trash outta my head.

[Evil Jerk]

It amazes me how these people accuse the others of being rude, when the garbage they spew is enough to make one want to not only insult them, but find out where they live and beat them up.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

What's alos amazing is how they nitpick people's logic, but resort to many logical fallacies themselves.

[HemlockGrey]

Christ, am I like one of the five Christians that actually accept evolution? Seems so.

[Singular Quartet]

Christ, am I like one of the five Christians that actually accept evolution? Seems so.

So that makes me #2...

[DasBastard]

Christ, am I like one of the five Christians that actually accept evolution? Seems so.

Most Catholics (and even the Vatican) have abandoned biblical literalism, although IIRC it is the position of the Vatican that God guided the progress of evolution to produce modern man. Which is clever, I guess, because it incorporates evolution science while tacking on an unfalsifiable interference from The Big Guy.

Anyway, in eight years of Catholic school, every science teacher I encountered (including the ordained ones) was an evolutionist - in fact I can't recall ever hearing any creationist nonsense from anyone in my time there.

[Sothis]

I guess I'm no 3 for Christians who believe evolution...

[lgot]

All the catholic bibles i have seen come with the saying that the Genisis are a parable to explain the world and not to be followed strictly. This makes protestants much harder since they are actually try to be those who meant to be in the book, even if they are not hebrew...
A good thing about the usual political position of the Catholic Church is that since they actually care about they temporal power and only use Jesus as excuse for that, they can change positions much easier to adapt to a new "powerful" position, since they do not give a damn anyways for what is written in their books...that is what make them survive for so long. Good politics.

[Sea Skimmer]

Christ, am I like one of the five Christians that actually accept evolution? Seems so.

Many would argue that you can' be both, if you believe n evolution your not a real Christian. Course many also need a kick in the ass, into the African bush. These people are also known as idiots and I personally favor enslavement.

James Roche really needs to revisit middle school science class.

[Tsyroc]

Christ, am I like one of the five Christians that actually accept evolution? Seems so.

Many would argue that you can' be both, if you believe n evolution your not a real Christian. Course many also need a kick in the ass, into the African bush. These people are also known as idiots and I personally favor enslavement.

James Roche really needs to revisit middle school science class.

I seem to remember accidently catching part of one of Billy Graham's crusades and in the bit I saw he suggested that it was the soul of man that
was made in the image of God and not the actual body, implying that there was no problem with the body changing over time, and therefore no
conflict with evolution.

I suppose that's as effective a way as any to accept creationism and evolution together. To me it is better than trying to take the "days" in Genesis and explain how they aren't the same as our days and that God worked on everything far longer in our perspective than what the Bible states (it was 6 days to him though).

Now, if Billy Graham could find some way to adjust his beliefs to fit with evolution you'd think it wouldn't be such a problem for so many people.

[Nick]

Now, if Billy Graham could find some way to adjust his beliefs to fit with evolution you'd think it wouldn't be such a problem for so many people.

I think a lot of (i.e. most) people do sort it out. It's just the ones who don't sort it out find it necessary to whinge loudly that the world is refusing to conform to their fucked up notions. . .