Hmm, interesting. Whereas i am totally not into religion, creationist or otherwise, Brian does put forward a good argument. Not like i'm going to convert or anything like that though... I hadn't realised that creationists actually accepted evolution, though in my limited knowledge (I can't be bothered to check it out) of the subject i thought they thought the world was only, say, 5000yrs old and so evolution would have only taken a few small steps since then. So where did it all begin? Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_record Looks like the fossil record goes back further than i thought myself. Where did those first organisms come from? I guess we then go to statistics; it just had to happen sometime... Thanks for putting forward reasoned arguments Brian, and shame on some people for not doing the same. I think at the next TCR i'll sponsor a discussion on this subject - i'll provide some beer and snacks to keep the parties going :-) Right, back to microprocessors... at least we know when they started and where they came from. Stefan
________________________________ From: Brian Riordan [mailto:riordan.br...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:07 PM To: bmorgan...@aol.com Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism I signed up for this listserve to go caving, camping, playing guitar around bonfires and having a good time with people who enjoy the outdoors. What I have recieved from cavetex is something entirely different. Since your response was to the whole listserve- I can only assume to increase the effect of your ridicule, so will mine be. Enjoy the stream of conscience. I don't think citing 150 years of reasoned argument can really be placed on my shoulders. I've had at best 26 years, of which I think I have a strong case that every one of those years can't be counted as time well spent considering the origins of life. If you are indeed trying to "penetrate [my] skull" or anyones skull with this knowledge, find a better forum for it. If you're smart, you'll find a larger group of these believers to have greater impact instead of just egotistically ranting your scientifically self-righteous claims to the answers of our existence to people who for the most part agree with you. If you're not smart, well, maybe someone in your line will be generations from now- if you breed selectively enough, of course. The most common criticism of Christians I hear is that they are judging, and force their beliefs on other people. Please note I have commented that this is not the forum for much of the religious ridicule taking place, and that if there is scientific questions regarding Christianity or Creationism, I'd be happy to try to answer. This isn't talking about aliens, or even God, if you'd paid attention. I specifically mentioned that many Christians/Creationists DO NOT argue against evolution, or at least a gradual change over time, but that evolution can not create life. Futhermore, I said that if their is discussions about evolution vs. Creationism, it should be based the on the scientific evidence that evolution is a viable method of creating life, versus why it isn't. Of course, if evolution can't create life, then you're dealing God then, but that has never been a topic of discussion from me. "To use this forum to ask questions about the varieties of religious experience would be like asking what color bodysuits the aliens wear during their probing sessions. "... Once again, I have stated that this forum is misused if that's the topic of discussion, so save your alien analogies- they're too entertaining to waste on inappropriate situations. This forum is especially misused when it degrades to this childish ridicule. I have left the exception, that if you're actually curious, and don't just like the sound of your own voice, I'd be happy to research/answer your questions to the best of my ability. For example: Jesus Christ! (who might have existed but was only a man who was relaxed and groovy with new ideas) Brian is a weak-minded, brain-washed fool! But instead of being a red-faced jackass about it, I'll politely pose a scientific question that addresses (one of the many appearing) weak-points of Christianity: "Hey Brian, i was curious how Creationists who take the Bible literally account for ice core dating in their young-earth theory? Heck, while you're at it, do all Creationists believe in a young-earth theory or did I once again just grossly generalize all Christians which often encompasses anyone who believes in a single diety that isn't Muslim or Jewish? Please get back to me when you get a chance." "Since reason isn't penetrating your skull". From this e-mail, it looks like the only reason you're pitching at me is threefold: 1. Those fossils weren't put there by a mischievous god, 2. the "Great Flood" did not create the Grand canyon, 3. and those funny looking salamanders didn't lose their eyesight due to a fall from grace. To respond: 1. I never claimed that God put fossils anywhere... I'm not sure where that is coming from. Maybe a separatist colony in the Bible Belt? Can't address that one for you. 2. I never said the "Great Flood" created Grand Canyon, I haven't looked into the Grand Canyon formation. If you're curious about the Creationist perspective on that, I could research it. 3. I never suspected salamanders fell from grace, nor can I imagine what those magnificent creatures could have done to do so. What you have cited (I presume as a testimony of evolution) is a great example of what could be considered de-evolution. Which is what we should expect (refer to the second law of thermodynamics) from entropy. Poor example if you're addressing the origins of life. That's about as much energy as I can muster when addressing a hostile e-mail. I attempted a mild response to not be too hypocritical, I hope I achieved it. Cheers, -Brian PS. Great vocabulary. If it wasn't meant to be ridicule, most especially me, I'd probably enjoy reading your e-mails. :) On 1/10/08, bmorgan...@aol.com <bmorgan...@aol.com> wrote: Evolution IS a fact. If, after 150 years of reasoned argument you still don't get it, then you are either simpleminded or pigheaded. Since most cavers are of above average intelligence I will presume it is the latter. Since reason isn't penetrating your skull then perhaps another approach might work, one that is closer to your animal nature, the inner ape as it were, and that is ridicule. If it were a simple matter of a simple person who believed that he or she had been abducted by aliens then that person would be a candidate for pity, but when there is a world wide movement to substitute superstition for science then that is a matter which requires attention, for we all suffer the consequences of our collective inability to address real world issues. To use this forum to ask questions about the varieties of religious experience would be like asking what color bodysuits the aliens wear during their probing sessions. It is good entertainment, so go ahead and ask, but don't expect to be treated with the solemnity customary to the proceeding of the Inquisition, or to have your answers taken seriously. Caving as a sport is informed by science, as it should be. Those fossils weren't put there by a mischievous god, the "Great Flood" did not create the Grand canyon, and those funny looking salamanders didn't lose their eyesight due to a fall from grace. If you believe otherwise good for you, let's hear it! Sleazeweazel ________________________________ Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape <http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489> in the new year. -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
